On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
Gotten adds something. It has a sense of motion about it. Eg on this thread, "I've gotten under your skin". That works. By contrast something such as "I've gotten the music in me". No. Not scanning.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
What problem is who not recognising? You appear to be caught in some strange persecutory fantasy. The current Govt is very aware of many problems and are clearly trying to do something about them. Now, you may conclude that they're not doing a very good job, but the idea that they refuse to recognise problems and are doubling down on "hyperliberalism" is entirely at odds with reality. Indeed, part of Labour's polling woes is because they've lost the "hyperliberal" vote on their left, while not convincing those in the centre that they're delivering.
You are an absolutely perfect example of the phenomenon.
In fact, you encapsulate it.
But you can't give actual examples. Because it's in your head.
You're like a man with a fork in a world of soup.
You're like a man who still can't give actual examples.
Can you give me a concrete example of a problem facing the country where there is "an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform"?
Come on, what problem? People coming over in boats? The government is very clear that this is a problem and they want to stop it happening. Asylum seekers in hotels? Government policy is to end this practice as soon as possible. Overall net immigration being high? The Government has committed to reducing it from the levels seen in the last few years of the previous administration.
As I said, you might well think the Government is shit at handling any of these. Fair enough. But they're not refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
I've really gotten under your skin, haven't I?
Got.
Shakespeare used "gotten", so I don't see why @Casino_Royale can't.
Shakespeare used it but doesn't change the fact it fell out of use in England for a long time.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Borman is an ignorant fool then, because the whole problem with the later Tudor dynasty was that Henry VIII's will had no legal validity. Having declared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, using his will to renominate them as his heirs (which was not possible under English law) was not only stupid but illegal.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
En Marche, 2017, in France.
Never in this country, in other words.
Labour in UK: first Labour government, no?
No - Macdonald had led the opposition from 1922-23.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Borman is an ignorant fool then, because the whole problem with the later Tudor dynasty was that Henry VIII's will had no legal validity. Having declared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, using his will to renominate them as his heirs (which was not possible under English law) was not only stupid but illegal.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
Borman went to the second finest universty in the country, the University of Hull.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Caught up with an Indian friend today. He came to England in his early 20s in the late 90s - he's an academic. Reportred that his sister was now voting Reform, amd went on a long diatribe about a) immigration (of the asylum seeker sort), b) people who fly Palestinian flags and c) Rachel Reeves. Entirely sympathetic to the England flags appearing around my home suburb.
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
En Marche, 2017, in France.
Never in this country, in other words.
Labour in UK: first Labour government, no?
No - Macdonald had led the opposition from 1922-23.
Plaid or Reform are quite likely to do it in Wales next year
It's a shame British English no longer embraces 'gotten' the way American English does. I've always thought there was something useful and elegant in the way the simple past tense is sometimes distinguished from the past participle by that 'en' construction:
I bit into the apple / I have bitten into the apple. I proved him wrong / I have proven him wrong. I fell into the pond / I have fallen into the pond.
etc. etc.
I have gotten into an awful mess just fits into that venerable tradition to my ears.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Caught up with an Indian friend today. He came to England in his early 20s in the late 90s - he's an academic. Reportred that his sister was now voting Reform, amd went on a long diatribe about a) immigration (of the asylum seeker sort), b) people who fly Palestinian flags and c) Rachel Reeves. Entirely sympathetic to the England flags appearing around my home suburb.
That reads like an @Leon anecdote. Although you could have embellished the story with some Albanian taxi drivers.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
why not just use driving licence, even if you don't drive you can get a provisional. Our lot will squander billions on a shit solution
Or alternatively, why not have an ID card say if you have a driving licence?
true , could be driving licence or an id card, be much cheaper fgiven amount who already have driving licence
can tell someone hasnt had to interact with the dvla recently. They probably one of the least capable government agencies, a bit better than the student loans people maybe
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Borman is an ignorant fool then, because the whole problem with the later Tudor dynasty was that Henry VIII's will had no legal validity. Having declared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, using his will to renominate them as his heirs (which was not possible under English law) was not only stupid but illegal.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
Borman went to the second finest universty in the country, the University of Hull.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Caught up with an Indian friend today. He came to England in his early 20s in the late 90s - he's an academic. Reportred that his sister was now voting Reform, amd went on a long diatribe about a) immigration (of the asylum seeker sort), b) people who fly Palestinian flags and c) Rachel Reeves. Entirely sympathetic to the England flags appearing around my home suburb.
That reads like an @Leon anecdote. Although you could have embellished the story with some Albanian taxi drivers.
I thought it interesting because it's a) not the position you expect of academics and b) emphasises that the sort of immigrants we do want are not necessarily sympathetic to those we do not. If it helps, he was also dead against Britain getting involved in Ukraine, so he's clearly not just trying to report opinions he thinks I'll agree with.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Interesting maybe to fast forward a few years with Mr Goodwin. Douglas Carswell, who was in some respects the Goodwin of a few years ago is now in the USA slowly going bonkers supporting Connolly and the deportation of millions. Not so long ago he had a more or less sane plan for national renewal.
Mr Goodwin was interesting a few years ago, but is less so now. Two questions arise. What are his ambitions over the next 10 years, and where will be be and doing what in 5 and 10 years?
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Caught up with an Indian friend today. He came to England in his early 20s in the late 90s - he's an academic. Reportred that his sister was now voting Reform, amd went on a long diatribe about a) immigration (of the asylum seeker sort), b) people who fly Palestinian flags and c) Rachel Reeves. Entirely sympathetic to the England flags appearing around my home suburb.
That reads like an @Leon anecdote. Although you could have embellished the story with some Albanian taxi drivers.
I thought it interesting because it's a) not the position you expect of academics and b) emphasises that the sort of immigrants we do want are not necessarily sympathetic to those we do not. If it helps, he was also dead against Britain getting involved in Ukraine, so he's clearly not just trying to report opinions he thinks I'll agree with.
sounds like one of those indians who is a big big fan of the caste system
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Caught up with an Indian friend today. He came to England in his early 20s in the late 90s - he's an academic. Reportred that his sister was now voting Reform, amd went on a long diatribe about a) immigration (of the asylum seeker sort), b) people who fly Palestinian flags and c) Rachel Reeves. Entirely sympathetic to the England flags appearing around my home suburb.
That reads like an @Leon anecdote. Although you could have embellished the story with some Albanian taxi drivers.
I thought it interesting because it's a) not the position you expect of academics and b) emphasises that the sort of immigrants we do want are not necessarily sympathetic to those we do not. If it helps, he was also dead against Britain getting involved in Ukraine, so he's clearly not just trying to report opinions he thinks I'll agree with.
I am not sure what your anecdote tells us other than your friend's attitude is one of " I'm already on the bus. Conductor please ring the bell".
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
I haven't changed my mind. The State should have no right to demand to know my identity unless I am trying to claim something from them.
The point of an ID card is a cheap way to confirm that you are who you claim to be.
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
It issue isn't a card, most people have passports and driving licences, it is the discussion of an ID card by politicians has always turned to having this massive database that is accessible across the public sector (in a way your passport isn't).
Where is the discussion of that massive database where everyone had access - it's not existed since about 2005 and nowadays it never would.
The easiest and quickest way to get fired at DWP / HMRC is to search for someone's details that you haven't got a reason to look at.
There is not a lot of point to an ID card versus your driving licence / passport if you aren't going to have such a database from the states perspective. I don't trust any government on this.
The Home Office morons are still selling the idea of Minority Report style “all data without barriers to access”.
Presumably they think that primary legislation gets past GDPR.
Are PBers really claiming that my refurbed flat is blingy and pretentious? What nonsense
Anyway in other news
About 17 years ago I bought two throws of hand loomed silk in Bhutan from the Bhutanese queen’s royal silk weaver. For about £100 the pair. I bought them direct from her in her atelier
They’ve been lying about the place ever since. Used as drawer liners or just forgotten. During my refurb I realised they are very beautiful. Albeit a bit stained from my casual misuse
So I did some solid research and it turns out that because of their provenance - the royal weaver - and the history of Bhutanese silk - they are probably worth $6,000-$10,000 each. Potentially more due to quality
Now one is carefully on show in my hallway and the other is off for a bit of repair
I’m like one of those ill bred idiots on antiques roadshow who uses a Vermeer as a tea tray
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
I am sure this is all nonsense and anyway all sorts of bits of the succession have been doubtful and full of jiggery pokery. (Try Henry VII, Henry IV, William and Mary, Henry II, Edward IV) and until modern times there was no fixed unchanging authority to determine it, as parliament does now.
What is true is that James VI/I emerging from the scrum with the ball changed a lot of things. Like uniting the England and Scotland crown, and having Charles I as his son.
It's a shame British English no longer embraces 'gotten' the way American English does. I've always thought there was something useful and elegant in the way the simple past tense is sometimes distinguished from the past participle by that 'en' construction:
I bit into the apple / I have bitten into the apple. I proved him wrong / I have proven him wrong. I fell into the pond / I have fallen into the pond.
etc. etc.
I have gotten into an awful mess just fits into that venerable tradition to my ears.
I also approve of “gotten”. A rugged and rhythmic word and perfectly acceptable. And useful
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Interesting maybe to fast forward a few years with Mr Goodwin. Douglas Carswell, who was in some respects the Goodwin of a few years ago is now in the USA slowly going bonkers supporting Connolly and the deportation of millions. Not so long ago he had a more or less sane plan for national renewal.
Mr Goodwin was interesting a few years ago, but is less so now. Two questions arise. What are his ambitions over the next 10 years, and where will be be and doing what in 5 and 10 years?
I suspect Goodwin lives or dies with Reform. If they succeed then I can very much see him being bussed in as a kind of court intellectual; if they flop I can't see him keeping this sort of stuff up for much longer - it would all seen a bit sad and forlorn with insufficient pay.
Are PBers really claiming that my refurbed flat is blingy and pretentious? What nonsense
Anyway in other news
About 17 years ago I bought two throws of hand loomed silk in Bhutan from the Bhutanese queen’s royal silk weaver. For about £100 the pair. I bought them direct from her in her atelier
They’ve been lying about the place ever since. Used as drawer liners or just forgotten. During my refurb I realised they are very beautiful. Albeit a bit stained from my casual misuse
So I did some solid research and it turns out that because of their provenance - the royal weaver - and the history of Bhutanese silk - they are probably worth $6,000-$10,000 each. Potentially more due to quality
Now one is carefully on show in my hallway and the other is off for a bit of repair
I’m like one of those ill bred idiots on antiques roadshow who uses a Vermeer as a tea tray
Teapots on cushions are all the rage with the sane.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
It's a shame British English no longer embraces 'gotten' the way American English does. I've always thought there was something useful and elegant in the way the simple past tense is sometimes distinguished from the past participle by that 'en' construction:
I bit into the apple / I have bitten into the apple. I proved him wrong / I have proven him wrong. I fell into the pond / I have fallen into the pond.
etc. etc.
I have gotten into an awful mess just fits into that venerable tradition to my ears.
I also approve of “gotten”. A rugged and rhythmic word and perfectly acceptable. And useful
Shakespeare, Authorised Version of 1611, Book of Common Prayer 1662 all use it, as did (still do??) parts of Yorkshire well into the 20th century, and as do our American and Canadian friends across the pond. I can't think of any higher combined authority.
Are PBers really claiming that my refurbed flat is blingy and pretentious? What nonsense
Anyway in other news
About 17 years ago I bought two throws of hand loomed silk in Bhutan from the Bhutanese queen’s royal silk weaver. For about £100 the pair. I bought them direct from her in her atelier
They’ve been lying about the place ever since. Used as drawer liners or just forgotten. During my refurb I realised they are very beautiful. Albeit a bit stained from my casual misuse
So I did some solid research and it turns out that because of their provenance - the royal weaver - and the history of Bhutanese silk - they are probably worth $6,000-$10,000 each. Potentially more due to quality
Now one is carefully on show in my hallway and the other is off for a bit of repair
I’m like one of those ill bred idiots on antiques roadshow who uses a Vermeer as a tea tray
That isn't the picture of your gaff we were shown earlier, or is your chintzy gin palace bar on the opposite wall?
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
I am sure this is all nonsense and anyway all sorts of bits of the succession have been doubtful and full of jiggery pokery. (Try Henry VII, Henry IV, William and Mary, Henry II, Edward IV) and until modern times there was no fixed unchanging authority to determine it, as parliament does now.
What is true is that James VI/I emerging from the scrum with the ball changed a lot of things. Like uniting the England and Scotland crown, and having Charles I as his son.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Interesting maybe to fast forward a few years with Mr Goodwin. Douglas Carswell, who was in some respects the Goodwin of a few years ago is now in the USA slowly going bonkers supporting Connolly and the deportation of millions. Not so long ago he had a more or less sane plan for national renewal.
Mr Goodwin was interesting a few years ago, but is less so now. Two questions arise. What are his ambitions over the next 10 years, and where will be be and doing what in 5 and 10 years?
I suspect Goodwin lives or dies with Reform. If they succeed then I can very much see him being bussed in as a kind of court intellectual; if they flop I can't see him keeping this sort of stuff up for much longer - it would all seen a bit sad and forlorn with insufficient pay.
The problem is, as Goodwin must be able to see, that while there is a clear route to Reform being elected - it looks to me about a 30% chance at the moment - there is no route to them governing successfully. The evidence for this is that even their brightest and best supporters are completely unable to give a coherent account of how this would be done.
There are times when you can govern OK by carrying on carrying on. 2029 doesn't look like being one of those dull but welcome times.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
As indeed did Richard III, Edward IV and Henry IV.
Fun fact - from 1307 to 1625 only on two occasions did one adult male directly and legally succeed another: Henry V in 1413 and Henry VIII in 1509.
Even if we add adult women in we can only add 1558 and 1603 as extra examples.
The idea of ID 'cards' sounds rather quaint by now, surely?
I don't even carry my bank or credit cards with me, let alone my driving license. Adding a random extra card would be a pain in the arse for someone who doesn't own a wallet or card holder.
If anything, we should be moving to digital driving licenses. We already have digital bank cards.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Borman is an ignorant fool then, because the whole problem with the later Tudor dynasty was that Henry VIII's will had no legal validity. Having declared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, using his will to renominate them as his heirs (which was not possible under English law) was not only stupid but illegal.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
Borman went to the second finest universty in the country, the University of Hull.
It shows. He clearly knows fuck all about English history. James VI's claim didn't rest on Elizabeth's say-so. It rested on him being the legitimate heir.
On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.
Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.
Yes I agree. I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.
Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?
Records are there to be broken..😏
My friend with a large vinyl collection didn't appreciate it when I brought that attitude along.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Borman is an ignorant fool then, because the whole problem with the later Tudor dynasty was that Henry VIII's will had no legal validity. Having declared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, using his will to renominate them as his heirs (which was not possible under English law) was not only stupid but illegal.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
Borman went to the second finest universty in the country, the University of Hull.
It shows. He clearly knows fuck all about English history. James VI's claim didn't rest on Elizabeth's say-so. It rested on him being the legitimate heir.
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
I haven't changed my mind. The State should have no right to demand to know my identity unless I am trying to claim something from them.
The point of an ID card is a cheap way to confirm that you are who you claim to be.
So I have zero problems with ID cards being introduced - the issue would come if you need to carry it with you at all times.
It issue isn't a card, most people have passports and driving licences, it is the discussion of an ID card by politicians has always turned to having this massive database that is accessible across the public sector (in a way your passport isn't).
Where is the discussion of that massive database where everyone had access - it's not existed since about 2005 and nowadays it never would.
The easiest and quickest way to get fired at DWP / HMRC is to search for someone's details that you haven't got a reason to look at.
There is not a lot of point to an ID card versus your driving licence / passport if you aren't going to have such a database from the states perspective. I don't trust any government on this.
The Home Office morons are still selling the idea of Minority Report style “all data without barriers to access”.
Presumably they think that primary legislation gets past GDPR.
It does as long as it specifically says it does. Unfortunately.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Borman is an ignorant fool then, because the whole problem with the later Tudor dynasty was that Henry VIII's will had no legal validity. Having declared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, using his will to renominate them as his heirs (which was not possible under English law) was not only stupid but illegal.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
Borman went to the second finest universty in the country, the University of Hull.
It shows. He clearly knows fuck all about English history. James VI's claim didn't rest on Elizabeth's say-so. It rested on him being the legitimate heir.
'He?'
Apologies 'They'. Since we are being 'woke' these days.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
As indeed did Richard III, Edward IV and Henry IV.
Fun fact - from 1307 to 1625 only on two occasions did one adult male directly and legally succeed another: Henry V in 1413 and Henry VIII in 1509.
Even if we add adult women in we can only add 1558 and 1603 as extra examples.
Isn’t there some weird detail that the current POW will be the first descendant of Charles I to be monarch since Queen Mary due to the Spencer line rather than the Windsor line.
Do I sell the Bhutanese silk for $25,000? Which is apparently what I could expect if they are sold together?
It sounds horribly mercenary. But $25k is… a lot
And how much utility do I get out of them now? I can walk past them every day in the hallway and think ooh isn’t that lovely. And the other one, er, gets folded away
And all the time I’m nervous about staining them (again) or they get nicked or whatever
Or I pocket twenty five grand US and buy something else. Fuck knows. Copper slippers. A hat made of quetzal feathers. A dog
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
I am idly wondering who would be the monarch now if, after the death of King Stephen (1154) and his childless surviving son William (1159) the throne had gone not to Henry II (as it did in 1154) but to Stephen's daughter Marie, followed by the elder of her two daughters, Ida of Boulogne.
You very rapidly move miles away from the line that prevailed into endless possible worlds.
Are PBers really claiming that my refurbed flat is blingy and pretentious? What nonsense
Anyway in other news
About 17 years ago I bought two throws of hand loomed silk in Bhutan from the Bhutanese queen’s royal silk weaver. For about £100 the pair. I bought them direct from her in her atelier
They’ve been lying about the place ever since. Used as drawer liners or just forgotten. During my refurb I realised they are very beautiful. Albeit a bit stained from my casual misuse
So I did some solid research and it turns out that because of their provenance - the royal weaver - and the history of Bhutanese silk - they are probably worth $6,000-$10,000 each. Potentially more due to quality
Now one is carefully on show in my hallway and the other is off for a bit of repair
I’m like one of those ill bred idiots on antiques roadshow who uses a Vermeer as a tea tray
On the other hand if I KEEP the Bhutanese silk I can feel smug every day til I die and think “oooh I bought some amazing silk for a song because I hVe brilliant taste”. And I CAN look at them every day and admire the luminescent beauty
I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).
The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.
I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.
However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.
In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.
The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.
I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.
And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.
If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.
why not just use driving licence, even if you don't drive you can get a provisional. Our lot will squander billions on a shit solution
Or alternatively, why not have an ID card say if you have a driving licence?
true , could be driving licence or an id card, be much cheaper fgiven amount who already have driving licence
can tell someone hasnt had to interact with the dvla recently. They probably one of the least capable government agencies, a bit better than the student loans people maybe
Oi! Square go in the car park now! SLC is one of the better run bits of the public sector - I know - I work for them.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
As indeed did Richard III, Edward IV and Henry IV.
Fun fact - from 1307 to 1625 only on two occasions did one adult male directly and legally succeed another: Henry V in 1413 and Henry VIII in 1509.
Even if we add adult women in we can only add 1558 and 1603 as extra examples.
Isn’t there some weird detail that the current POW will be the first descendant of Charles I to be monarch since Queen Mary due to the Spencer line rather than the Windsor line.
It would be since Queen Anne, but I think the particular point is he would be the first descendant of Charles II to ascend the throne.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
I am idly wondering who would be the monarch now if, after the death of King Stephen (1154) and his childless surviving son William (1159) the throne had gone not to Henry II (as it did in 1154) but to Stephen's daughter Marie, followed by the elder of her two daughters, Ida of Boulogne.
You very rapidly move miles away from the line that prevailed into endless possible worlds.
No way of even pondering it as the line that follows Ida would be totally different if she had been Queen of England. Same sort of more modern argument can be made for if Charlie had not been convinced to retreat by Dudley Bradstreet and co at Derby, we know the line from there but those same people would not exist after a while as history alters and the Stewarts are Kings of Britain not obscure Euro nobility.
It's a shame British English no longer embraces 'gotten' the way American English does. I've always thought there was something useful and elegant in the way the simple past tense is sometimes distinguished from the past participle by that 'en' construction:
I bit into the apple / I have bitten into the apple. I proved him wrong / I have proven him wrong. I fell into the pond / I have fallen into the pond.
etc. etc.
I have gotten into an awful mess just fits into that venerable tradition to my ears.
I also approve of “gotten”. A rugged and rhythmic word and perfectly acceptable. And useful
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
As indeed did Richard III, Edward IV and Henry IV.
Fun fact - from 1307 to 1625 only on two occasions did one adult male directly and legally succeed another: Henry V in 1413 and Henry VIII in 1509.
Even if we add adult women in we can only add 1558 and 1603 as extra examples.
Isn’t there some weird detail that the current POW will be the first descendant of Charles I to be monarch since Queen Mary due to the Spencer line rather than the Windsor line.
It would be since Queen Anne, but I think the particular point is he would be the first descendant of Charles II to ascend the throne.
Yes, think that’s the detail I was thinking of re Charles II.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
I am idly wondering who would be the monarch now if, after the death of King Stephen (1154) and his childless surviving son William (1159) the throne had gone not to Henry II (as it did in 1154) but to Stephen's daughter Marie, followed by the elder of her two daughters, Ida of Boulogne.
You very rapidly move miles away from the line that prevailed into endless possible worlds.
No way of even pondering it as the line that follows Ida would be totally different if she had been Queen of England. Same sort of more modern argument can be made for if Charlie had not been convinced to retreat by Dudley Bradstreet and co at Derby, we know the line from there but those same people would not exist after a while as history alters and the Stewarts are Kings of Britain not obscure Euro nobility.
WE can imagine, for example, that Henry Stewart would not have entered the church and might have had children of his own.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
I am idly wondering who would be the monarch now if, after the death of King Stephen (1154) and his childless surviving son William (1159) the throne had gone not to Henry II (as it did in 1154) but to Stephen's daughter Marie, followed by the elder of her two daughters, Ida of Boulogne.
You very rapidly move miles away from the line that prevailed into endless possible worlds.
No way of even pondering it as the line that follows Ida would be totally different if she had been Queen of England. Same sort of more modern argument can be made for if Charlie had not been convinced to retreat by Dudley Bradstreet and co at Derby, we know the line from there but those same people would not exist after a while as history alters and the Stewarts are Kings of Britain not obscure Euro nobility.
WE can imagine, for example, that Henry Stewart would not have entered the church and might have had children of his own.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Who cares ?
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
As indeed did Richard III, Edward IV and Henry IV.
Fun fact - from 1307 to 1625 only on two occasions did one adult male directly and legally succeed another: Henry V in 1413 and Henry VIII in 1509.
Even if we add adult women in we can only add 1558 and 1603 as extra examples.
Isn’t there some weird detail that the current POW will be the first descendant of Charles I to be monarch since Queen Mary due to the Spencer line rather than the Windsor line.
It would be since Queen Anne, but I think the particular point is he would be the first descendant of Charles II to ascend the throne.
Though not of course on the right side of the blamket. But it's nice to have a line that circumvents all those Georges.
TV recommendation: "Inside the Cult of the Jesus Army" on iPlayer is fascinating and scary and makes you think about how the country has changed.
A friend of mine used to be a member. His blog was full of incredibly disturbing stories.
There was a big old Baronial style house where I grew up that was - contemporary to me - owned by an odd Christian cult. Lots of dodgy rumours and eventually they shut up shop - only to be replaced by some other nutters. Amazing how much money they have for such simple Christ-following folks.
Also - after WW2 it was a maternity hospital and where David Byrne of Talking Heads fame was born.
The idea of ID 'cards' sounds rather quaint by now, surely?
I don't even carry my bank or credit cards with me, let alone my driving license. Adding a random extra card would be a pain in the arse for someone who doesn't own a wallet or card holder.
If anything, we should be moving to digital driving licenses. We already have digital bank cards.
A digital ID card would make a lot of sense, since we could prove we were human in a world of AI Leons, and that is already becoming quite important. Sooner or later we will need to move to some kind of E-validation, and the chip and multiple pin based national ID systems are cheap and substantially fool proof.
It's a shame British English no longer embraces 'gotten' the way American English does. I've always thought there was something useful and elegant in the way the simple past tense is sometimes distinguished from the past participle by that 'en' construction:
I bit into the apple / I have bitten into the apple. I proved him wrong / I have proven him wrong. I fell into the pond / I have fallen into the pond.
etc. etc.
I have gotten into an awful mess just fits into that venerable tradition to my ears.
I still hear 'gotten' quite often around here (Glasgow). Possibly a north drift? Or an Irish-English hangover?
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
Please, please have it back. Give it to Farage, anything. Just to stop me having to listen to the next 8 months of Westminster hacks opining about the Holyrood elections.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
Please, please have it back. Give it to Farage, anything. Just to stop me having to listen to the next 8 months of Westminster hacks opining about the Holyrood elections.
Happily the Guardian going on about visiting ****ing comedians at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe will come to a natural end soon. It feels like as much page content as the entire totality of their other Scottish news over the year.
The idea of ID 'cards' sounds rather quaint by now, surely?
I don't even carry my bank or credit cards with me, let alone my driving license. Adding a random extra card would be a pain in the arse for someone who doesn't own a wallet or card holder.
If anything, we should be moving to digital driving licenses. We already have digital bank cards.
In the US, a number of states have allowed Apple / Google Wallet to enable the ID to be added in the same way as you add your bank cards, so a copy of on your phone.
Having some sort of ID on a card, either physically or digitally, is not the core issue. It is who has access to the information and how safely it is kept by the government. For it to be much more useful for the government than your driving licence or passport, it would have to be that that information is much more widely shared. Which is where privacy campaigners highlight serious issues.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Caught up with an Indian friend today. He came to England in his early 20s in the late 90s - he's an academic. Reportred that his sister was now voting Reform, amd went on a long diatribe about a) immigration (of the asylum seeker sort), b) people who fly Palestinian flags and c) Rachel Reeves. Entirely sympathetic to the England flags appearing around my home suburb.
That's an attitude you do come across surprisingly often. A lot of the trouble in Banglatown last year was between the established Bangladeshi community and the more recent arrivals who were often religiously and socially more conservative and wanted to impose more traditional ways on established locals which caused a lot of resentment.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
Please, please have it back. Give it to Farage, anything. Just to stop me having to listen to the next 8 months of Westminster hacks opining about the Holyrood elections.
Doesn't work. We gave America back 249 years ago and the hacks keep going on about their obscure politicians and their arcane methods of rigging elections.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
Please, please have it back. Give it to Farage, anything. Just to stop me having to listen to the next 8 months of Westminster hacks opining about the Holyrood elections.
Happily the Guardian going on about visiting ****ing comedians at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe will come to a natural end soon. It feels like as much page content as the entire totality of their other Scottish news over the year.
See also Radio 4. "And for todays episode of 'News of the River Tamar' we're brought to you from the Edinburgh Festival!"...
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Borman is an ignorant fool then, because the whole problem with the later Tudor dynasty was that Henry VIII's will had no legal validity. Having declared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, using his will to renominate them as his heirs (which was not possible under English law) was not only stupid but illegal.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
Borman went to the second finest universty in the country, the University of Hull.
It shows. He clearly knows fuck all about English history. James VI's claim didn't rest on Elizabeth's say-so. It rested on him being the legitimate heir.
'He?'
'Him' is correct, prepositions taking the accusative regardless. (Query: is the form here as a whole an accusative absolute? I am getting hazy on this stuff).
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges to the changes.
We haven't really solved the problem of what to do about people who are rejected but a) the state is very slow to deport them and b) we get into more legal challenges about the safety of sending them back.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
What it will do at the very least is give them cover in the media to say we have reduced hotel usage (nobody questions what a hotel is and what a HMO is) and the backlog is down, with the clearing up 14 years of Tory mismanagement claims.
And of course all this mute if we still keeping getting more and more boat people.
The bloody Scots keep on stealing from the English, this has been going on for centuries.
Scotland’s James VI ‘stole the English Crown’
Scans of contemporary reports suggest the Scottish monarch’s legitimacy may have been forged
James I stole the Crown of England, a new book has claimed.
The Scottish king James VI came to rule over England and his own lands as James I following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603.
But in a break from orthodoxy, historian and TV presenter Tracy Borman has claimed that he effectively seized the throne.
Contemporary reports of the crisis of the succession appear in William Camden’s Annals, which recounts a story of the dying Elizabeth agreeing that James would ascend to the throne.
Borman has argued that scans of Camden’s supposedly contemporary documents reveal this story was not his own and was added later.
She told The Times that undermined the idea that Elizabeth chose James, and that the story added after the fact was planted to boost the Scottish monarch’s claim to legitimacy.
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
It makes the monarchy illegitimate, republic now.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
Borman is an ignorant fool then, because the whole problem with the later Tudor dynasty was that Henry VIII's will had no legal validity. Having declared Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, using his will to renominate them as his heirs (which was not possible under English law) was not only stupid but illegal.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
Borman went to the second finest universty in the country, the University of Hull.
It shows. He clearly knows fuck all about English history. James VI's claim didn't rest on Elizabeth's say-so. It rested on him being the legitimate heir.
'He?'
'Him' is correct, prepositions taking the accusative regardless. (Query: is the form here as a whole an accusative absolute? I am getting hazy on this stuff).
Tracy Borman is a SHE!
(And an idiot, but the operative part of this discussion is 'a she.')
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
What it will do at the very least is give them cover in the media to say we have reduced hotel usage (nobody questions what a hotel is and what a HMO is) and the backlog is down, with the clearing up 14 years of Tory mismanagement claims.
And of course all this mute if we still keeping getting more and more boat people.
Respectfully, I disagree
People are now so attuned to this issue they are well aware of HMOs and housing being occupied by apparently freeloading asylum seekers (at vast expense to the taxpayer, even as Brits struggle to pay rent)
So emptying the hotels will do nothing to end the crisis. It will simply move furious attention to the next non-solution
Farage is right. Only ending "asylum" as we know it and beginning large scale deportations will resolve British anger. It is beyond micro-management now
The tweeter is an anti-China Taiwanese radical, but the video of Xi is quite perturbing (if you have concerns about good health in the Chinese elite)
That looks like an AI video. Watch the clapping hands, they look very weird.
Maybe, but look at this. An apparently real Chinese media news report, and the videos of Xi's visit to Tibet look awfully similar to that one, right down to the awkward robotic clapping
The tweeter is an anti-China Taiwanese radical, but the video of Xi is quite perturbing (if you have concerns about good health in the Chinese elite)
That looks like an AI video. Watch the clapping hands, they look very weird.
Maybe, but look at this. An apparently real Chinese media news report, and the videos of Xi's visit to Tibet look awfully similar to that one, right down to the awkward robotic clapping
There is something weird about both when they are clapping. Has somebody messed about with the frame rate or added frames using AI? And in frames if you watch, the fingers of some do weird things of some of those clapping.
Its not really her third home though, in the sense of one is grace and favour flat, she doesn't own it, its tied to her job.
However, given how much trouble she has had in the past trying to remember which place she actually lives in, having 3, she might get terribly confused.
The tweeter is an anti-China Taiwanese radical, but the video of Xi is quite perturbing (if you have concerns about good health in the Chinese elite)
That looks like an AI video. Watch the clapping hands, they look very weird.
Maybe, but look at this. An apparently real Chinese media news report, and the videos of Xi's visit to Tibet look awfully similar to that one, right down to the awkward robotic clapping
The tweeter is an anti-China Taiwanese radical, but the video of Xi is quite perturbing (if you have concerns about good health in the Chinese elite)
That looks like an AI video. Watch the clapping hands, they look very weird.
Maybe, but look at this. An apparently real Chinese media news report, and the videos of Xi's visit to Tibet look awfully similar to that one, right down to the awkward robotic clapping
There is something weird about both when they are clapping. Has somebody messed about with the frame rate?
Perhaps it is "official" AI...
Lhasa is at what, 3500m? A serious altitude if you are not in great health and normally live in the plains.
Well the Chinese have some of the best video models.
There is a new mystery AI image editor that has been released, called nano banana, that people are getting very excited about as it does some amazing things.
Just been visiting with a friend. A bundle of news.
It turns out that one of our local gypsies is up on manslaughter charges having killed someone who intervened to try and separate him from somebody he was having an altercation with at the local pub. Never get involved when a boxer is in a shouting match. He did a runner then handed himself in.
And a motorcyclist was killed in a "single vehicle collision" at 11:20pm one night last week not too far away from here.
And they took the grandkids to Alton Towers for the day, failed to notice the monorail and walked more than a mile from the car park . They had four "Gold Passes" (ie jump the queues once for the big rides) amongst the 5 of them. Just under £600 for the day, which was a little more than I paid last time I was there. It's apparently "this year's big day out".
Death stats of all sorts may be up this year, it seems. That's our full pro-rata quota of road deaths this year ie one.
And - a bit further away a motorcyclist was killed at the end of July in a collision involving an interesting set of vehicles:
Officers now want to speak to anyone who saw any of the vehicles involved - a Harley Davidson motorcycle, a Volvo V90 and a Bentley Brooklands - in the moments before the collision.
In the very near future (its kinda of already here), both audio and video with audio will be very hard to detect subtle edits to it. If you are a politician, I am not sure how you protect yourself? Record everything yourself?
In the very near future (its kinda of already here), both audio and video with audio will be very hard to detect subtle edits to it. If you are a politician, I am not sure how you protect yourself? Record everything yourself?
It is possible to add an encrypted signal to digital video and audio which would reveal any breaks, ommissions or additions. I suspect this will become the norm going forward.
Comments
That doesn't alter the fact he was the rightful heir and generally accepted.
Borman has claimed that because Elizabeth did not name an heir, the line of succession was still determined by laws set out by her father Henry VIII.
In the book, called The Stolen Crown: Treachery, Deceit and the Death of the Tudor Dynasty, it is argued that these laws insisted that no foreigner, including a Scot, could claim the throne of England. The crown, therefore, should have passed to one of potential rival Tudor claimants.
In fact, on Edward's death under English law the crown should have passed to one of Jane Grey or Mary Stuart, probably the latter. Had it not been for John Dudley's naked politicking and Henry VIII's arrogance it would have done so.
(of course, had one of them been male, that might also have tipped the balance.)
Edit - there was an old law from the time of Edward III that persons born abroad could not be King, but that was largely to thwart any reverse takeovers by the French and was abrogated when Edward IV seized the crown in 1461 anyway.
I bit into the apple / I have bitten into the apple.
I proved him wrong / I have proven him wrong.
I fell into the pond / I have fallen into the pond.
etc. etc.
I have gotten into an awful mess just fits into that venerable tradition to my ears.
If it helps, he was also dead against Britain getting involved in Ukraine, so he's clearly not just trying to report opinions he thinks I'll agree with.
A cheering sight in Cornwall as of course they went “extinct”
Mr Goodwin was interesting a few years ago, but is less so now. Two questions arise. What are his ambitions over the next 10 years, and where will be be and doing what in 5 and 10 years?
Presumably they think that primary legislation gets past GDPR.
Ref 29 (-2)
Lab 23 (+1)
Con 17 (=)
LD 14 (+1)
Grn 9 (=)
SNP 3 (=)
PC 1 (=)
Anyway in other news
About 17 years ago I bought two throws of hand loomed silk in Bhutan from the Bhutanese queen’s royal silk weaver. For about £100 the pair. I bought them direct from her in her atelier
They’ve been lying about the place ever since. Used as drawer liners or just forgotten. During my refurb I realised they are very beautiful. Albeit a bit stained from my casual misuse
So I did some solid research and it turns out that because of their provenance - the royal weaver - and the history of Bhutanese silk - they are probably worth $6,000-$10,000 each. Potentially more due to quality
Now one is carefully on show in my hallway and the other is off for a bit of repair
I’m like one of those ill bred idiots on antiques roadshow who uses a Vermeer as a tea tray
What is true is that James VI/I emerging from the scrum with the ball changed a lot of things. Like uniting the England and Scotland crown, and having Charles I as his son.
Henry's father took the throne by force. The particular de jure detail around his successors was of far less relevance than the de facto balance of political power.
There are times when you can govern OK by carrying on carrying on. 2029 doesn't look like being one of those dull but welcome times.
Fun fact - from 1307 to 1625 only on two occasions did one adult male directly and legally succeed another: Henry V in 1413 and Henry VIII in 1509.
Even if we add adult women in we can only add 1558 and 1603 as extra examples.
I don't even carry my bank or credit cards with me, let alone my driving license. Adding a random extra card would be a pain in the arse for someone who doesn't own a wallet or card holder.
If anything, we should be moving to digital driving licenses. We already have digital bank cards.
Do I sell the Bhutanese silk for $25,000? Which is apparently what I could expect if they are sold together?
It sounds horribly mercenary. But $25k is… a lot
And how much utility do I get out of them now? I can walk past them every day in the hallway and think ooh isn’t that lovely. And the other one, er, gets folded away
And all the time I’m nervous about staining them (again) or they get nicked or whatever
Or I pocket twenty five grand US and buy something else. Fuck knows. Copper slippers. A hat made of quetzal feathers. A dog
You very rapidly move miles away from the line that prevailed into endless possible worlds.
And then they get eaten by moths
Murdered: 47%
Suicide: 23%
Unsure: 31%
YouGov / Jul 28, 2025
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1959307218660069445
Same sort of more modern argument can be made for if Charlie had not been convinced to retreat by Dudley Bradstreet and co at Derby, we know the line from there but those same people would not exist after a while as history alters and the Stewarts are Kings of Britain not obscure Euro nobility.
"Do you think the following engaged in crimes with Epstein?"
Bill Clinton:
Yes: 47%
No: 12%
Donald Trump:
Yes: 48%
No: 26%
YouGov / Jul 28, 2025
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1959307544326709528
Trump's hardcore supporters appear happy to ignore the fact that their guy might be guilty.
Also - after WW2 it was a maternity hospital and where David Byrne of Talking Heads fame was born.
Having some sort of ID on a card, either physically or digitally, is not the core issue. It is who has access to the information and how safely it is kept by the government. For it to be much more useful for the government than your driving licence or passport, it would have to be that that information is much more widely shared. Which is where privacy campaigners highlight serious issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_successions_to_the_English_and_British_Crown?wprov=sfla1
That's all they are so far, rumours
President Vance would be..... interesting
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/asylum-seekers-migrants-appeal-system-overhaul-hotels-keir-starmer-chdvn8sxh
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges to the changes.
We haven't really solved the problem of what to do about people who are rejected but a) the state is very slow to deport them and b) we get into more legal challenges about the safety of sending them back.
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
And of course all this mute if we still keeping getting more and more boat people.
(And an idiot, but the operative part of this discussion is 'a she.')
https://x.com/jenniferzeng97/status/1959275505909395508
The tweeter is an anti-China Taiwanese radical, but the video of Xi is quite perturbing (if you have concerns about good health in the Chinese elite)
People are now so attuned to this issue they are well aware of HMOs and housing being occupied by apparently freeloading asylum seekers (at vast expense to the taxpayer, even as Brits struggle to pay rent)
So emptying the hotels will do nothing to end the crisis. It will simply move furious attention to the next non-solution
Farage is right. Only ending "asylum" as we know it and beginning large scale deportations will resolve British anger. It is beyond micro-management now
https://x.com/Byron_Wan/status/1958316818965414349
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36413600/angela-rayner-property-portfolio-housing-labour-politics/
Le Monde is using a still from the same video, and it is credited to the Official Chinese News Agency, Xinhua
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/08/22/chine-xi-jinping-prone-la-stabilite-politique-et-sociale-lors-d-une-visite-au-tibet_6633483_3210.html
However, given how much trouble she has had in the past trying to remember which place she actually lives in, having 3, she might get terribly confused.
Lhasa is at what, 3500m? A serious altitude if you are not in great health and normally live in the plains.
There is a new mystery AI image editor that has been released, called nano banana, that people are getting very excited about as it does some amazing things.
But I did see today two warning signs for hedgehogs.
I've seen them for children, deer and ducks before but not hedgehogs.
It turns out that one of our local gypsies is up on manslaughter charges having killed someone who intervened to try and separate him from somebody he was having an altercation with at the local pub. Never get involved when a boxer is in a shouting match. He did a runner then handed himself in.
And a motorcyclist was killed in a "single vehicle collision" at 11:20pm one night last week not too far away from here.
And they took the grandkids to Alton Towers for the day, failed to notice the monorail and walked more than a mile from the car park
Death stats of all sorts may be up this year, it seems. That's our full pro-rata quota of road deaths this year ie one.
And - a bit further away a motorcyclist was killed at the end of July in a collision involving an interesting set of vehicles:
Officers now want to speak to anyone who saw any of the vehicles involved - a Harley Davidson motorcycle, a Volvo V90 and a Bentley Brooklands - in the moments before the collision.