When did the monarchy in England lose power? (1 Viewer)

[JeremyErwin]

Flyover Country: The parts of the country between the East and West Coasts. You know, the parts that you flyover when you need to move between your mansion in Malibu to your apartment in Central Park West.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Ah. Now that I think about it, "flyover" has no connection to freeways in American usage -- we use it here to refer to major roads (including expressways) where a raised section 'flies over' another road, to avoid having a junction. Not sure if anyone else calls such bridges "flyovers".

 

[King Ghidora]

Yeah most of the east coast and west coast types think that there isn't any real break between NYC and LA. They think it's all suburbs all the way. It sounds weird but they really do think that. I've had people visit here where I live from NYC and totally freak out because we went to a friends house that was half a mile up a dirt road with no houses around. The guy thought we were taking him out to kill him and that's no joke. He kept saying "nobody lives out here - where are you taking me?" It would have been funny if it wasn't so sad. That poor guy was so glad to see a house at the end of that road that I thought he was going to explode. That's why so many city folks think the world is ruined by man because the parts they always see are ruined by man compared to where I live. I live in Ohio BTW which is far more populated than states like Wyoming.

One other thing. My friends are from London so I never got why they were so touchy about the whole UK thing. I knew there were people from the rest of the British Isles that don't want to be called English but London???

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Yee-Ming,
Yank-speak for such a freeway construction is an "overpass".

One can illustrate "flyover country" graphically by using a map of the results of the presidential election in 2000.

The so-called "red states" that went for Bush are mostly grouped in the middle of the country. Just watch any Woody Allen film and you will see the all-too-common attitude shown that the US is just NYC and LA.

"Celtic fringe"...I like that expression. Maybe I'll use it in my book. Is the term considered polite, or rude and insulting?

Perhaps one of the reasons for sensitivity is the population distribution in the UK. With a total population of around 60 million, 50 million live in England, 5 million live in Scotland, 3 million live in Wales, and 2 million live in Northern Ireland. As far as I can see as an American, the UK didn't evolve a "big state/little state" compromise as detailed in the US Constitution. In the US, California contains 10% of the population of the entire country and even in that situation California strains the big state/little state compromise.

 

[andrew markworthy]

The term is pretty neutral unless you use it sardonically.

The Celtic Fringe issue goes back a thousand years or more. Basically, once upon a time the Celts were all over what is now the UK, but invasions by Romans, Angles, Saxons, etc into the south of England pushed the Celts out of most of England and into the 'fringes' of the country. This is basically Ireland, Scotland and Wales, plus Cornwall (the extreme south west of England - check a map). In addition, Cumbria (which means 'land of the Welsh') in north west England could also be considered part of the fringe, but the inhabitants don't. There are Celtic fringes in other European countries as well - e.g. Spain and France have their fringes.

The reasons for animosity towards England are many and varied and I don't think I can go through them even as a neutral description without incurring the wrath of administrators over the no political statements rule (which, incidentally, I fully support). Suffice to say that as with all these things, there are points on both sides. Also, the true level of animosity can be hugely overplayed. Where I live in Wales, things are limited to being stridently against the English rugby union team (given that four of the members of the Welsh rugby team are near-neighbours of mine and their training ground is about two miles from my house I can sort of understand this, and in any case - long story - I've always supported the Welsh team anyway). Otherwise, I've never heard a single anti-English comment in the four years I've lived here and indeed, I've found Wales to be the most welcoming place I've ever lived.

 

[JeremyErwin]

And what of the north south divide? In the United States, the expenditures on the south (east) exceed the tax revenue generated by the south (east). It's the opposite for the north (east). Military bases, agricultural subsidies, pork, etc etc.

I have read recently on a british blog (which I'm not prepared to name, so don't ask) that the opposite situation exists, and in the north, government expenditures actually form the majority of the economy. The blogger hypothesized that the fiscal responsibility of government is enhanced if at least some of the ministers (who need not be tories, btw) have constituencies in the south.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Curiously, there's a north-south divide in England and Wales, for slightly different reasons.

England: In the 19th Century, the North enjoyed fantastic prosperity as the Industrial Revolution got into its stride. A large part of this was due to cotton - the valleys of northern England had just the right micro-climates for the weaving of cotton, and the relatively underdeveloped coastal regions were ripe for developing into what were at the time cutting-edge modern ports. E.g. if I've got the facts right on this one, the ports of Sunderland and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (N.E. England) between them saw a greater tonnage of shipping in a year than the whole of the USA. If you want to see the best in 19th Century English art (I agree, not that great a goal) then you need to see the city art galleries of Manchester and Liverpool - basically, they had the spending power to buy up anything good that came on the market. Come the 20th century, and there was a marked decline in the former industrial heartlands. BUT - it would be a mistake to think that the whole of the North is economically depressed. For example, Cheshire (go down a bit from Manchester and you'll find it) has the highest per capita ownership of Mercedes cars in the world. The pockets of relative wealth are generally due to either farming or high-tech/service industries relocating because the property is relatively cheap compared with the south east.

But the North-South divide goes deeper than simple economics. Northerners are traditionally seen as blunt speaking and down to earth, whereas Southerners are seen as more refined. If you're a social climber, the first thing you do is try to lose a pronounced northern accent if you have one. However, the ironic thing is that after the Received Pronunciation accent (the one the Queen uses) the clearest spoken English is what is called the Manchester Accent (not really specific to Manchester, but found across Northern England - basically, it uses northern English inflections, which are generally 'harder' than southern English). A good example of the Manchester Accent is Sir Ian McKellan or Patrick Stewart.

Wales: The divide here is between the nationalistic and largely rural north and the industrialised/service industry south. The north has a much higher concentration of Welsh speakers and is the heartland of Plaid Cymru (pronounced 'plied cumree') the Welsh nationalist party. Southern Wales tends to see itself as more cosmopolitan and looks more for its links towards England and Europe.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Really? Listening to footballers giving post-match interviews, I would never have thought that these two RSC thespians have Manc accents -- I'd always thought theirs was RP. Goes to show what I know about Brit accents. Then again, come to think of it I always have trouble making out what a friend from South London is saying because it all sounds like a bit of a mumble. Ironically, my wife complains that I mumble too...

 

[andrew markworthy]

You are entirely correct, and it's my fault for not explaining more thoroughly [and incidentally, your knowledge of Brit English is amazing!].

The 'Manchester Accent' is horribly inaccurate as a description. A better term would be 'educated Northern'. Sir Ian is, I think, originally from Lancashire, and Patrtick Stewart is from Yorkshire.

I can't say this without sounding snobbish, which isn't my intention, but the accent of working class people in Manchester is nothing like the 'Manchester Accent'. It's far more nasal and sounds a bit 'whiny'. If you've ever heard Oasis you'll know what I mean. Alternatively, if you ever get the chance to watch an episode of 'Coronation Street' (the UK's longest running soap opera) you can hear the working class Mancunian accent (and all its variants).

 

[JeremyErwin]

The BBC has a page on accents, with many recordings

 

[andrew markworthy]

Jeremy - many thanks for this link. I'd forgotten the Beeb had done this!

 

[King Ghidora]

The uneven distribution of wealth production and expenditures in the US goes back to the Civil War. The south essentially had their entire economic structure destroyed and then they were invaded by "carpet baggers" from the north who were often given government jobs which they used for their own benefit further damaging the south's ability to be economically viable. Plus the economy of the south was agrarian while the north was more about trade and eventually industrialization. The geography of the north vs. the south made those distinctions what they are. The north had more rivers suitable for establishing mills etc. back when most industries were powered by water wheels.

Plus it was hot in the south which meant malaria so lots more people preferred to live in the north. It really wasn't until the advent of air conditioning that the south saw it's economy revitalized.

It should be noted that the south is reversing the trends of the past now. People can live in comfort in the south during the summer and the threat of malaria is long gone and industrialization has moved from the north to the south in a big way. While the northern industries continue to struggle and northern cities especially in the midwest struggle with urban blight the south has become what the north was in the past. Population shift has become a big problem for the north and the south too for that matter.

The bottom line is that without the captialism centers still being located in New York the south would likely be producing more wealth than the north.

We see foreign car companies building their plants mostly in the south instead of the north for example. My point is that I think the reversal of the situation described by Jeremy is already writing on the wall IMO. The south will become the bigger producer of wealth in the near future. The Gulf Coast is already a very large producer of wealth as is Florida. And the east coast southern states are growing exponentially as far economics go. If you haven't been to places like Charlotte or the mountains of northern Georgia lately you might be surprised. Money and people are leaving the north for the south in a big way. The growth of NASCAR is a prime example of the New South economy. They rake in tons of cash at those races which are pretty much all in the south except for a single race at Indianapolis (I think that's the only race in the north but I'm not a big enough fan to know for sure).

But northerners still think of the south as backwards and uncivilized. A recent political group was advised to get a series of shots before they campaigned in the south. The shots are generally only required for visits to third world countries. There was a big uproar over that. In the US if you have a southern accent you're immediately judged to be backwards and uncultured. It seems to be the mirror image of the UK in this regard right down to the cotton fields and the better climate for industrialization being factors in the economy. Like mirror images it's reversed though. Or upside down in this case depending which way your map is turned.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Interestingly, during the US Civil War, the UK tended to support the South. This was largely due to the shared interest in the cotton trade.

 

[King Ghidora]

France also considered joining the war on the side of the south but both France and England were swayed by the Emancipation Proclamation which made it politically unfeasible for either to enter the war. England made up for their decreased supply of cotton by obtaining more from Egypt and India. Also there were serious grain crop failures in England during the early 1860's which made the grain supplied by the north more important than the cotton supplied by the south. France had seized Mexico in what is called the Maximilian Affair in 1861 and they didn't want to risk a war that might cost them their conquest.

The bottom line is that even though England and France initially supported the south both refrained from helping either side.

 

[JeremyErwin]

From an article in the New York Times (22 February 1861)

 

[andrew markworthy]

Jeremy, an interesting quotation, but of course what was said publically and what was thought privately are two rather different things ...

 

[Yee-Ming]

I should probably qualify all this by stating that I lived in the UK from age 6 to 9 -- and actually learnt English there, don't think I spoke any before we moved -- so my own first accent was RP, but that's since been 'debased' by what's spoken around here. But put me back in England and I sound like a public schoolboy again...

Obviously, as a child I wasn't very attuned to accents, just realising that some people spoke differently. But over the years, and through watching lots of Brit (and US) TV, you slowly figure out regional differences. Having said that, since Hollywood produces a lot more stuff than the UK, I seem to be able to identify different American accents a lot better than UK ones -- I can tell a 'northern' accent immediately, but won't necessarily distinguish between Scouse, Manc or Yorkshire. Scots and Irish, though, are much more obvious.

North v. South -- in his alternate history books, Harry Harrison does postulate overt support by the UK for the Confederacy, but things go completely pear-shaped when the UK, in an attempt to retaliate for something the Union did (detain a British ship) land by mistake on Confederate soil and pillage a town, leading to immediate cessation of hostilities between North and South, and indeed cooperation to face the 'new' enemy. But before all that, Harrison does suggest that the UK supported the Confederacy privately a lot more than they publicly could admit to.

 

[Holadem]

(BTW, the North Side Divide Bac essay question I posted referred to the global N/S divide, i.e., rich countries vs poor countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-South_divide )

Just FYI.

--
H

 

[JeremyErwin]

Indeed, and that paper gives hints that the Rebels did maintain close but unofficial ties with England. The Times was solidly aligned with the United States during the war. Incidentally, all their articles from before 1923 can be freely downloaded.

I've herad that the British Empire took a big hit economically when they banned slavery in 1833, so aligning themselves with slavers once more would have been politically difficult.

 

[King Ghidora]

Any English politician who supported the slave states after the Emanciapaton Proclamation would have just as well of handed in his resignation on the spot but it was political suicide at the time. Plus a big reason for England proclaiming they wouldn't be supporting the south was that they were desperate for the grain shipments that came from the north. They had total grain crop failures in England in 1860-1862. They needed the grain to eat so despite the affinity they felt with the cotton farmers they had to choose to stay neutral because the north had said they would cut off all shipments to any country that recognized the Confederacy. It was a matter of survival for them really. There wouldn't have been any other place that could have supplied them the grain they needed to survive. I think they did want the union to break up partly because they had lost 2 wars to the US within a century of the Civil War and they probably thought they could dominate the region again if the union failed. But that's speculation on my part. Remember this wasn't that long after England had essentially endorsed piracy against Spain and Holland during the reign of Elizabeth I. They were still very much an imperialistic nation from that time up until the Civil War and beyond and they rarely turned down a chance to expand the empire. They could have thought the USA broken up would have been easy pickings for the royal navy.

Also it is important that England was part of the slavery, rum, manufactured goods triangle that drove the slave trade. No doubt their abandoning any dealings with slave traders hurt their economy considerably but it was already done by the time of the Civil War and I'm sure they didn't want to fight that battle again just as you suggest Jeremy. For one thing Parliament had compensated slave holders after they emanciapated the slaves so I'm sure they didn't want to go down that road again or even get anywhere near it.