Happy St. George's Day! (Anybody?)

So edds just learned it was St. George's Day, and I think it's sad that here in my (almost, working on it) new home, I witnessed absolutely no displays of pride in Englishness or English culture -- and I went to Tesco twice today!

What's the deal?

I didn’t even know, not that I care anyway, but it is weird that there were no displays of flags anywhere.

There seems to be a lot going on according to the news.

Fair enough, we haven't watched the news.

Didn't you know...?


Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

Have you tried Morris Dancing yet Ben?
There seems to have been parades in Manchester and villages all over, all sorts of events I London, including Morris Dancing.

Tommy Monk wrote:Didn't you know...?


Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

People shouldn't give in to the nonsense, I'd be inclined to celebrate it more in that case.

Vintage wrote:Have you tried Morris Dancing yet Ben?
There seems to have been parades in Manchester and villages all over, all sorts of events I London, including Morris Dancing.

Hahahahahaha that’s what one of our friends said to him about the May Day celebrations we will be having here in our town soon.
Maybe if we all get him drunk enough....

Take photos please.

Vintage wrote:Take photos please.

Oh. I will.

Vintage wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didn't you know...?


Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

People shouldn't give in to the nonsense, I'd be inclined to celebrate it more in that case.

This has to do with the English flag being used by nationalist groups, right?

I say fuck them, seriously.

Here's what I think -- I have always liked keeping my hair really short, or shaving my head, and wearing black boots like Dr Martens and Cats. As a result, people have sometimes pointed out that it's sort of a Neo-Nazi look, and I've sometimes gotten funny looks from black strangers in the street.

But I don't want to let hate groups lay claim to anything whatsoever -- not a hairstyle, not a look, and certainly not a country's flag.

I really like England. It's truly an amazing place now, and looking at its history, for good or for bad, nobody can deny that if you were to somehow pluck it out of the history of the world, the world would be unrecognizable.

Tesco? Are you still over there. I think I'll fly over.

Fortunately, I am within two degrees of consanguinity of a British subject, so I could just sign the papers.

St George's greatest claim to fame was having a Rugby League team named after him :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Illawarra_Dragons

https://www.dragons.com.au/

Tommy Monk wrote:Didn't you know...?


Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

This is such an easy claim, but does not match reality.

Even as a small kid we never really celebrated St George's Day. It wasn't just with the rise of the BNP and EDL that it stopped - it was never a big deal to begin with

I think there is a lot to be said about 'Why' a national holiday is celebrated and how that affects the magnitude of the celebrations.

Independence Day (in the US or any other former colony) is HUGE, because it marks the day a formerly subjugated nation was freed/freed itself from the shackles of imperialism. THAT is worth celebrating.

Bastille Day in France marks the destruction of Absolute Monarchy in France and the birth of the French Republic (the 1st one at least lol). That, again, is worth celebrating.

The Irish celebrate St Patrick's Day in a way that none of the other nation's of the British Isles do. But again, Ireland was once a subjugated nation of the UK - England, Scotland and Wales were not.

Thailand has a dozen national holidays, but they are mostly religious or the monarchy - the major cultural components of Thailand. There is a 'Constitution Day', which is basically Thailand's celebration of its (first) democratic constitution - but it is a much less enthusiastic affair than the various Buddha's and King's days. Again, like England, Thailand does not have a 'day' where it can celebrate its independence or a massive change in its governing system. Because, like England, progress in Thailand was gradual (if occasionally turbulent) and it was never colonised.

If Britain has been conquered and then overthrew its conqueror - we'd have a massive national holiday.
If Britain had overthrown its autocratic government for a new system (that stuck) we'd have a national holiday.

But we don't. We're lucky in that way, in a way. But that's why we don't have a national celebration to really get enthusiastic about the same as the Americans, French, Irish and others.

NOTE: 14/10/1066 doesn't count, since we were conquered but never overthrew that ruling family.
30/01/1649 doesn't count, since while parliament won sovereignty over an autocratic monarch, we returned to a monarchy in 1660.
16/12/1689 (or the Glorious Revolution a year earlier) might be our best shout, since that reaffirmed parliamentary authority and put checks of the monarch - but we were also 'made' to accept a Dutch man as our king.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didn't you know...?


Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

This is such an easy claim, but does not match reality.

Even as a small kid we never really celebrated St George's Day. It wasn't just with the rise of the BNP and EDL that it stopped - it was never a big deal to begin with

I think there is a lot to be said about 'Why' a national holiday is celebrated and how that affects the magnitude of the celebrations.

Independence Day (in the US or any other former colony) is HUGE, because it marks the day a formerly subjugated nation was freed/freed itself from the shackles of imperialism. THAT is worth celebrating.

Bastille Day in France marks the destruction of Absolute Monarchy in France and the birth of the French Republic (the 1st one at least lol). That, again, is worth celebrating.

The Irish celebrate St Patrick's Day in a way that none of the other nation's of the British Isles do. But again, Ireland was once a subjugated nation of the UK - England, Scotland and Wales were not.

Thailand has a dozen national holidays, but they are mostly religious or the monarchy - the major cultural components of Thailand. There is a 'Constitution Day', which is basically Thailand's celebration of its (first) democratic constitution - but it is a much less enthusiastic affair than the various Buddha's and King's days. Again, like England, Thailand does not have a 'day' where it can celebrate its independence or a massive change in its governing system. Because, like England, progress in Thailand was gradual (if occasionally turbulent) and it was never colonised.

If Britain has been conquered and then overthrew its conqueror - we'd have a massive national holiday.
If Britain had overthrown its autocratic government for a new system (that stuck) we'd have a national holiday.

But we don't. We're lucky in that way, in a way. But that's why we don't have a national celebration to really get enthusiastic about the same as the Americans, French, Irish and others.

NOTE: 14/10/1066 doesn't count, since we were conquered but never overthrew that ruling family.
30/01/1649 doesn't count, since while parliament won sovereignty over an autocratic monarch, we returned to a monarchy in 1660.
16/12/1689 (or the Glorious Revolution a year earlier) might be our best shout, since that reaffirmed parliamentary authority and put checks of the monarch - but we were also 'made' to accept a Dutch man as our king.

Y'all just don't know how to celebrate.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didn't you know...?


Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

This is such an easy claim, but does not match reality.

Even as a small kid we never really celebrated St George's Day. It wasn't just with the rise of the BNP and EDL that it stopped - it was never a big deal to begin with

I think there is a lot to be said about 'Why' a national holiday is celebrated and how that affects the magnitude of the celebrations.

Independence Day (in the US or any other former colony) is HUGE, because it marks the day a formerly subjugated nation was freed/freed itself from the shackles of imperialism. THAT is worth celebrating.

Bastille Day in France marks the destruction of Absolute Monarchy in France and the birth of the French Republic (the 1st one at least lol). That, again, is worth celebrating.

The Irish celebrate St Patrick's Day in a way that none of the other nation's of the British Isles do. But again, Ireland was once a subjugated nation of the UK - England, Scotland and Wales were not.

Thailand has a dozen national holidays, but they are mostly religious or the monarchy - the major cultural components of Thailand. There is a 'Constitution Day', which is basically Thailand's celebration of its (first) democratic constitution - but it is a much less enthusiastic affair than the various Buddha's and King's days. Again, like England, Thailand does not have a 'day' where it can celebrate its independence or a massive change in its governing system. Because, like England, progress in Thailand was gradual (if occasionally turbulent) and it was never colonised.

If Britain has been conquered and then overthrew its conqueror - we'd have a massive national holiday.
If Britain had overthrown its autocratic government for a new system (that stuck) we'd have a national holiday.

But we don't. We're lucky in that way, in a way. But that's why we don't have a national celebration to really get enthusiastic about the same as the Americans, French, Irish and others.

NOTE: 14/10/1066 doesn't count, since we were conquered but never overthrew that ruling family.
30/01/1649 doesn't count, since while parliament won sovereignty over an autocratic monarch, we returned to a monarchy in 1660.
16/12/1689 (or the Glorious Revolution a year earlier) might be our best shout, since that reaffirmed parliamentary authority and put checks of the monarch - but we were also 'made' to accept a Dutch man as our king.

Y'all just don't know how to celebrate.

That's not really true - we have famously great NYE parties. We spend all of the holiday between Christmas and New Year partying. Some of us even party hard of Saint Paddy's day

We just don't seem to care much, as a nation, for St George's Day. Even the name of it sounds lame (whereas Independence Day sounds great, as does the idea of celebrating the 'Storming of the Bastille')

It's racist to celebrate St George's day and elizel is on patrol so no one wants to go to the basement for 3 weeks

Wales and Scotland were subjugated, I don't know why people think Ireland has the monopoly on that.
Perhaps because its more recent.
Edward l invaded Wales and Scotland which is why Wales is full of castles. At one time anyone Welsh could be killed on sight in English controlled towns after curfew, not sure how they were were recognised, people married to a Welsh person could divorce them or loose their estates and position in England. No one with Welsh connections were supposed to hold land or any position in England. The Welsh princely families were killed or in the case of women confined to nunneries, what could be called the crown jewels of Wales were confiscated and broken up and probably incorporated into the English stuff.
As for Scotland re: Hammer of the Scots and land clearances.
The English language was imposed one way or another on these countries, quite subjugating I think, look at Cornwall, where its own language has had to be revived in recent times.

Vintage wrote:Wales and Scotland were subjugated, I don't know why people think Ireland has the monopoly on that.
Perhaps because its more recent.
Edward l invaded Wales and Scotland which is why Wales is full of castles.  At one time anyone Welsh could be killed on sight in English controlled towns after curfew, not sure how they were were recognised, people married to a Welsh person could divorce them or loose their estates and position in England. No one with Welsh connections were supposed to hold land or any position in England. The Welsh princely families were killed or in the case of women confined to nunneries, what could be called the crown jewels of Wales were confiscated and broken up and probably incorporated into the English stuff.
As for Scotland re: Hammer of the Scots and land clearances.
The English language was imposed one way or another on these countries, quite subjugating I think, look at Cornwall, where its own language has had to be revived in recent times.

The Welsh were subjugated under Edward I, yes, and throughout the 1400s, but there hasn't since been a movement for Welsh independence on anything like the scale of Irish or even Scottish moves for the same.

And Edward I was the Hammer of the Scots, but he never got them to capitulate. I'm pretty sure most Scots are proud that they were never 'conquered' by the English crown. They willingly became part of the UK (even if only due to their own economic and imperial issues). Even more than the Welsh, the Scots are utterly incomparable to the Irish.

And IF one day the Scottish ever DO gain independence, I'm quite sure they'll make that a day worth celebrating

All true, I don't think you have to endure the violent upheaval of becoming independent to be able to celebrate your national identity however recent. Many peoples have suffered from invasions and colonisation, some manage to resist, sometimes it ends because that empire ceases to exist, sometimes its a political agreement. So I don't think it equates to throwing off the 'shackles of colonialism' with how avidly you celebrate saints days or independence days.

Vintage wrote:Wales and Scotland were subjugated, I don't know why people think Ireland has the monopoly on that.
Perhaps because its more recent.
Edward l invaded Wales and Scotland which is why Wales is full of castles.  At one time anyone Welsh could be killed on sight in English controlled towns after curfew, not sure how they were were recognised, people married to a Welsh person could divorce them or loose their estates and position in England. No one with Welsh connections were supposed to hold land or any position in England. The Welsh princely families were killed or in the case of women confined to nunneries, what could be called the crown jewels of Wales were confiscated and broken up and probably incorporated into the English stuff.
As for Scotland re: Hammer of the Scots and land clearances.
The English language was imposed one way or another on these countries, quite subjugating I think, look at Cornwall, where its own language has had to be revived in recent times.

Isn't there an English city (possibly Hereford) where it's still "legal" to shoot a Welshman...but only with a bow and arrow and not on a Sunday?

In York, a Mr Henry Shrimp lodged a Freedom of Information request with the city council in 2012 pointing out that it is still legal there to use bows and arrows to shoot Scotsmen, and demanding to know how many Scotsmen had been shot during the preceding 10 years.

The resulting correspondence was hilarious. (It's on something called whatdotheyknow.com.

The laws are still on the books as far as I'm aware.

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Vintage wrote:All true, I don't think you have to endure the violent upheaval of becoming independent to be able to celebrate your national identity however recent. Many peoples have suffered from invasions and colonisation, some manage to resist, sometimes it ends because that empire ceases to exist, sometimes its a political agreement. So I don't think it equates to throwing off the 'shackles of colonialism' with how avidly you celebrate saints days or independence days.

You're oversimplifying my point. My point being that the reason a celebration exists might have a some bearing on the magnitude of the celebrations.

And it all stems from history.

A New Year, with all it entails (new life, resolutions, new opportunities, personal change, goal setting etc.) is a MASSIVE celebration at whatever time of year it is celebrated (January, February or April) and in whatever country.

Easter and Christmas are fairly huge affairs in traditionally Christian nations because historically the events they marked were HUGELY important (the Birth and Death of Christ), and as such remain important.

Independence Day in America is hugely important due to its significance as the day the USA become a full-fledged nation.

I'm not saying my idea is absolute fact, it is only a suggestion. But I'm not hearing any other.

There was no historic relevance for the English as to the date (23rd April). It was the day a great man from far away died. That that same man was adopted by an English King (Edward III, I think) makes it no more or less significant to the English (unlike the 4th July or 14th July for Americans and French respectively).

Do you have a better explanation as to why St George's Day is far more muted affair? Do you honestly think it's because of the associations with Nationalists?

Is it muted? It isn't from the news features. Parades in cities and villages, a lot seemed to have gone on in London but it isn't a national holiday of course if it was perhaps much more celebration would be evident.

Vintage wrote:Is it muted? It isn't from the news features. Parades in cities and villages, a lot seemed to have gone on in London but it isn't a national holiday of course if it was perhaps much more celebration would be evident.

'more' muted

OK

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didn't you know...?

Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

That old chestnut? Who in their right mind would object to St George's day being celebrated?  


How much of a simpleton would someone have to be, to object to celebrating a national day??    Misuse of the flag for illegal political reasons is another matter altogether. Objecting to the latter is not the same as objecting to the former, and to lump both issues together  - well that's you being deliberately mischievous.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didn't you know...?


Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

This is such an easy claim, but does not match reality.

Even as a small kid we never really celebrated St George's Day. It wasn't just with the rise of the BNP and EDL that it stopped - it was never a big deal to begin with

I think there is a lot to be said about 'Why' a national holiday is celebrated and how that affects the magnitude of the celebrations.

Independence Day (in the US or any other former colony) is HUGE, because it marks the day a formerly subjugated nation was freed/freed itself from the shackles of imperialism. THAT is worth celebrating.

Bastille Day in France marks the destruction of Absolute Monarchy in France and the birth of the French Republic (the 1st one at least lol). That, again, is worth celebrating.

The Irish celebrate St Patrick's Day in a way that none of the other nation's of the British Isles do. But again, Ireland was once a subjugated nation of the UK - England, Scotland and Wales were not.

Thailand has a dozen national holidays, but they are mostly religious or the monarchy - the major cultural components of Thailand. There is a 'Constitution Day', which is basically Thailand's celebration of its (first) democratic constitution - but it is a much less enthusiastic affair than the various Buddha's and King's days. Again, like England, Thailand does not have a 'day' where it can celebrate its independence or a massive change in its governing system. Because, like England, progress in Thailand was gradual (if occasionally turbulent) and it was never colonised.

If Britain has been conquered and then overthrew its conqueror - we'd have a massive national holiday.
If Britain had overthrown its autocratic government for a new system (that stuck) we'd have a national holiday.

But we don't. We're lucky in that way, in a way. But that's why we don't have a national celebration to really get enthusiastic about the same as the Americans, French, Irish and others.

NOTE: 14/10/1066 doesn't count, since we were conquered but never overthrew that ruling family.
30/01/1649 doesn't count, since while parliament won sovereignty over an autocratic monarch, we returned to a monarchy in 1660.
16/12/1689 (or the Glorious Revolution a year earlier) might be our best shout, since that reaffirmed parliamentary authority and put checks of the monarch - but we were also 'made' to accept a Dutch man as our king.

Oh I love this post, Elz !!  I tried to give it a green but I mistakenly gave another post of yours a green instead.  but that one was also a good post - so, no harm done lol.


Great historical summary there, and I like how you end your post  - Oliver sandwiched between two Billies.  Billy aka the "bastard" and Billy the Kid  King  haha   


Your point about King Billy being Dutch  - remember that everyone of these European monarchs were closely related by blood. The grandad of this 'Dutch' king was the King of England ! And I mean - a bona fide king  of England, not some rogue knight who sneaked in,  ambushed the army, snatched the crown and claimed the throne.


Another thing, they had some weird rules whereby the King of one country was automatically the sovereign of several others. Eg being the king of the Netherlands also made you the monarch of Spain. Being queen of England made you the empress of India plus 101 other states right across the globe.

And yet another thing.... national boundaries in those days were very different from current ones. The boundaries were  usualy modified each time there was a war. Areas like Prussia, Bohemia, Crimea, Anatolia effectively vanished, you don't hear those names any more.

Happy belated St Goerge's day (not to mention Easter Sunday) to everyone who celebrated either. x

Jules wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didn't you know...?


Any celebration of Englishness/nationalism is deemed as "racism" these days...

This is such an easy claim, but does not match reality.

Even as a small kid we never really celebrated St George's Day. It wasn't just with the rise of the BNP and EDL that it stopped - it was never a big deal to begin with

I think there is a lot to be said about 'Why' a national holiday is celebrated and how that affects the magnitude of the celebrations.

Independence Day (in the US or any other former colony) is HUGE, because it marks the day a formerly subjugated nation was freed/freed itself from the shackles of imperialism. THAT is worth celebrating.

Bastille Day in France marks the destruction of Absolute Monarchy in France and the birth of the French Republic (the 1st one at least lol). That, again, is worth celebrating.

The Irish celebrate St Patrick's Day in a way that none of the other nation's of the British Isles do. But again, Ireland was once a subjugated nation of the UK - England, Scotland and Wales were not.

Thailand has a dozen national holidays, but they are mostly religious or the monarchy - the major cultural components of Thailand. There is a 'Constitution Day', which is basically Thailand's celebration of its (first) democratic constitution - but it is a much less enthusiastic affair than the various Buddha's and King's days. Again, like England, Thailand does not have a 'day' where it can celebrate its independence or a massive change in its governing system. Because, like England, progress in Thailand was gradual (if occasionally turbulent) and it was never colonised.

If Britain has been conquered and then overthrew its conqueror - we'd have a massive national holiday.
If Britain had overthrown its autocratic government for a new system (that stuck) we'd have a national holiday.

But we don't. We're lucky in that way, in a way. But that's why we don't have a national celebration to really get enthusiastic about the same as the Americans, French, Irish and others.

NOTE: 14/10/1066 doesn't count, since we were conquered but never overthrew that ruling family.
30/01/1649 doesn't count, since while parliament won sovereignty over an autocratic monarch, we returned to a monarchy in 1660.
16/12/1689 (or the Glorious Revolution a year earlier) might be our best shout, since that reaffirmed parliamentary authority and put checks of the monarch - but we were also 'made' to accept a Dutch man as our king.

Oh I love this post, Elz !!  I tried to give it a green but I mistakenly gave another post of yours a green instead.  but that one was also a good post - so, no harm done lol.


Great historical summary there, and I like how you end your post  - Oliver sandwiched between two Billies.  Billy aka the "bastard" and Billy the Kid  King  haha   


Your point about King Billy being Dutch  - remember that everyone of these European monarchs were closely related by blood. The grandad of this 'Dutch' king was the King of England ! And I mean - a bona fide king  of England, not some rogue knight who sneaked in,  ambushed the army, snatched the crown and claimed the throne.


Another thing, they had some weird rules whereby the King of one country was automatically the sovereign of several others. Eg being the king of the Netherlands also made you the monarch of Spain. Being queen of England made you the empress of India plus 101 other states right across the globe.

And yet another thing.... national boundaries in those days were very different from current ones. The boundaries were  usualy modified each time there was a war. Areas like Prussia, Bohemia, Crimea, Anatolia effectively vanished, you don't hear those names any more.

Yeah, the inbred monarchs of Europe caused all manner of problems with the spread of their seeds

The loss of historic names of areas is so sad. The heart of Prussia isn't even in Germany anymore. Bohemia and Crimea are regions at least and do still exist with those names.

I also think it's sad that Thailand is no longer called Siam (due to a nationalistic military regime in the mid-20th century). And I swear people would be much less hostile to Iran if it were still referred to as Persia

Eilzel wrote:Bohemia and Crimea are regions at least and

do still exist with those names.

Yep they do (after a fashion!)  .... BUT ... after so many centuries of Euro 'turf wars' to establish national borders, it would be asking for trouble to keep using such vague names. Nowadays those old names are never referenced in the news or in modern official documents.
They were once vast proud kingdoms, now they are ill defined shrunken shadows of their former selves.

Eilzel wrote:  
I also think it's sad that Thailand is no longer called Siam (due to a nationalistic military regime in the mid-20th century). And I swear people would be much less hostile to Iran if it were still referred to as Persia

So true on both counts! Those old heraldic names are so romantic, they come straight out of literature/poems/B&W movies etc, and they make you sigh.  Ahhh.
-