Anglosphere
<<Irony or arrogance>>
Or, how about "historical colonial name"?
After all, the British referred to their colonies in the new world as their "American colonies" for the couple hundred years that they owned them, and it seemed perfectly natural to keep the name after the revolution -- United States of America. After all, no one else had used it at that point as part of their official name, right?
Nor did we insist on dibs, either -- you can still find subsequent maps that refer to the area north of us as "British America". After all, it was still controlled by Britain and had not yet picked out its present name, Canada.
No reason why you need to get all offended. It's neither a new invention nor something aimed at anyone else. And it's a lame and tired topic that someone feels the need to bring up every few months. We've been called Americans by ourselves and by others for about 400 years now, and it ain't gonna change because you don't like it. Go ahead and try to get over it already.
Southamerican,
Europe and Asia are not separated by water, yet they are considered two continents.
Why in the world do you find it hard to understand why people in the united states don't consider North America and South America to be ONE continent.
People from Brazil are called South Americans- not Americans. It has nothing to do with ignorance or arrogance. Different countries classify continents differently...
Yes, in previous threads we have discussed the issue of an alternative name for the citizens of the United States of America and the general consensus of opinion was that "United Statians" or just "Statians" or even "Statesians" or anything similkar was simply a load of b*ll**ks...an absolute non starter....a no-goer, so Americans they will always remain.
The rest of the people who live in the Americas...North, Central or South.... are either Canadians or Mexicans or whatever are the accepted terms for the peoples of all the other individual nations making up the Western Hemispherical land-masses.
As for the British Commonwealth...it most certainly is not true that membership is open to any country which applies for it....that also is a load of what I said above in reference to the Americans. It consists solely of all those countries which formed part of the former British Empire, or associated with it in any official capacity.
Continued membership of the British Commonwealth is entirely up to the will of the Governments and people of each constituent country...they perfectly are at liberty to retain membership and to regard Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State, or to sever all ties completely and become completely independent with a Constitution of their own choice if they so wish. It is up to their respective Governments, who, in true democracies, are merely the elected representatives of the people anyway, are they not?
For years now Australia, as a good example, has whinged and whined about a preference for cutting all ties with Britain and the Commonwealth but each time any definitive moves in that direction have never got off the ground because when push comes to shove it appears that the majority of Aussies actually prefer to retain the status quo, according to public opinion polls - perhaps even in a referendums (referenda?) - I'm not too sure whteher they've actually held such things down there on the upside down bit of the planet...I need to check that one out sometime.
Anyway, if the Aussies really do feel any kind of hostility or resentment towards Britain and the British people, for whatever reason, then I'd like to know why the bloody hell there are so many of the buggers living and working over here among us Poms?
Go down to the Earls Court district, here in London, and you'd think you were in a suburb of Sydney with all the Ockers knocking about the area or serving behind the bars of pubs all over London and scowling at you with a "G'die mite, what kin oy git ya?" We've even got some of them back home in Edinburgh, too....and Canadians as well, come to think of it.......
;-)
We don't feel any resentment towards Britain, we just find the concept of having some figurehead old hag on the other side of the world as 'head of state' a bit ridiculous and silly. Any mention of the queen here almost invariably evokes mockery and ironic remarks. By the way, there are a lot of Brits down under too, so the flow is in both directions.
Wow! "old hag" sounds kind of vicious. Hope people aren't turning into
"heavenly creatures" down there.
Hmmmm, interesting
What exactly has the queen done that people get so worked up about her?
<<As for the British Commonwealth...it most certainly is not true that membership is open to any country which applies for it>>
Apparently, some of the eligible countries are:
- China
- France
- Greece
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Israel
- Phillipines
- Spain
- United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations_membership_criteria
I wonder what the odds of Ireland, China, or the US joining the Commonwealth are?
>> the old hag <<
Wow... That sounds really disrespectful. Here in the US, I've never heard anyone refer to her as something like that. Same thing in Canada, where she even has (very, very small) political influence. Most people hear don't mind the royal family at all. In fact we love going to England hoping to catch a glimpse of the Queen. Since she has so little influence on politics, why would you resent her so much? It just doesn't make sense.
<<Here in the US, I've never heard anyone refer to her as something like that.>>
I suppose that's because, strictly speaking, she's not really our Monarch. Her image is not on the coins, stamps, currency, etc., so her presence is not forced upon us. Every now and then, a member of the Royal Family comes to visit. Those who are interested pay attention, and those who are not interested ignore the whole thing.
Yeah, I guess that's true.
uncommon Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:33 am GMT
Apparently, some of the eligible countries are:
- France
__________________________
almost...
<<Britain and France talked about a "union" in the 1950s, even discussing the possibility of the Queen becoming the French head of state, it was reported today.
On September 10 1956, Guy Mollet, the then French prime minister, came to London to discuss the possibility of a merger between the two countries with his British counterpart, Sir Anthony Eden, according to declassified papers from the National Archives, uncovered by the BBC.
A British cabinet paper from the period reads: "When the French prime minister, Monsieur Mollet, was recently in London, he raised with the prime minister the possibility of a union between the United Kingdom and France."
At the time of the proposal, France was in economic difficulties and faced the escalating Suez crisis. Britain had been a staunch French ally during the two world wars.
When Mr Mollet's request for a union failed, he quickly responded with another plan - that France be allowed to join the British commonwealth - which was said to have been met more warmly by Sir Anthony.
A document dated September 28 1956 records a conversation between the prime minister and his cabinet secretary, Sir Norman Brook, saying:
"The PM told him [Brook] on the telephone that he thought, in the light of his talks with the French:
· That we should give immediate consideration to France joining the Commonwealth
· That Monsieur Mollet had not thought there need be difficulty over France accepting the headship of her Majesty
· That the French would welcome a common citizenship arrangement on the Irish basis."
However, this proposal was also eventually rejected and, a year later, France signed the Treaty of Rome with Germany and the other founding nations of the European common market.
"I tell you the truth - when I read that I am quite astonished," the French Nationalist MP, Jacques Myard, told the BBC today.
"I had a good opinion of Mr Mollet before. I think I am going to revise that opinion. I am just amazed at reading this, because since the days I was learning history as a student I have never heard of this. It is not in the textbooks."
No French record of the proposal appears to exist, and it is unclear whether there were any proposals for the name of the new union.
A spokesman for the French embassy said most people had been surprised by the revelation. "We are looking at our national archives," he said. "We cannot comment at this stage."
The idea of a link-up between countries was not unique. Between 1958 and 1961, Egypt and Syria merged to become the United Arab Republic in an initial move to establish a pan-Arab state.
The union broke up following a coup in Syria, but Egypt continued to call itself the United Arab Republic until 1971.>>
Well of course some Australians and New Zealanders feel that way about the Queen. There are bad people in every country.
<<Well of course some Australians and New Zealanders feel that way about the Queen. There are bad people in every country. >>
How is it bad to feel that the queen is irrelevant? We do not literally despise her as a person, we just find the idea of having a queen to be silly and outdated. If we carried out a referendum today I am sure that people would vote to become a republic, however the government is putting it off. But not for long, the Prime Minister himself stated that he "can't see New Zealand not becoming a republic within the next 15 years". By then the support will be overwhelming, as the only people who are for the monarchy are old people.
It doesn't help that you never hear anything good about the royals anyway, in fact, is it surprising that we mock them when they have basically just become a bunch of Hollywood-esque celebrities? Bring on the next scandal...
<Britain and France talked about a "union" in the 1950s, even discussing the possibility of the Queen becoming the French head of state>
There was a proposal in 1940 for an Anglo-French union. Churchill and De Gaulle were behind it, I believe.
MrP
"How is it bad to feel that the queen is irrelevant? We do not literally despise her as a person"
Perhaps you should say that instead of calling her an old hag. It reminds me of some woman in the woods who dresses badly and eats children who have been turned into gingerbread.