 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Queen Elizabeth Land
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:05 AM You may want to amend your atlases. The former British Antarctic Territory is now Queen Elizabeth Land. Just so you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Bill D Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:51 AM Does that include both Elizabeths by default? (Is it a suggestion that either of them were frigid? ☺) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,Backwoodsman Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:53 AM According to the BBC this afternoon, it's the southern part of the B.A.T. thats to be re-named, not all of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Bill D Date: 18 Dec 12 - 11:05 AM so..it does refer to the Southern parts of Elizabeth! gracious! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Leadfingers Date: 18 Dec 12 - 11:09 AM Queen Elizabeth Land is COOL !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,Backwoodsman Date: 18 Dec 12 - 11:12 AM LOL Terry! Cool in more ways than one! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:53 PM She has enough land... Call it The Peoples Land, instead.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Wolfhound person Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:57 PM Yawn. Paws |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:46 PM Oh, come on Lizzie. People are sure to call it Lizzieland, and then... ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Ed T Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:54 PM I am glad they did not name it after me, I wouldn't know what to do with it - and would likely be an absentee landlord, not giving a dam for the locals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Dec 12 - 03:17 PM There are already lots of 'edlands |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Dave the Gnome Date: 18 Dec 12 - 03:57 PM Damn! I was sure someone has taken my suggestion and sold the Monarchy to Disney. I'll not go into it all again but, basically, I am not altogether anti-royal. They are a good tourist attraction, just not very good at managing it. So, if Disney took over we win all round :-) Queen Elizabeth Land fits in with other theme parks quite well I reckon... Cheers DtH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:07 PM as a citizen of the uk -never a subject- i think it's appalling that a monarch should attend a government meeting as the grumpy old trout did today. it's just sick that we apparently have any sort of jurisdiction over another country's land and craven nonsense that we should call it 'qe land' fucksake - the age of empire is over, the idolatry of monarchs at least a couple of centuries out of time.....grow up, people! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: gnu Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:53 PM Say that to Bee's face and you could lose your head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:18 PM He's blissfully unaware of her family's financial clout. Do some internet searches on the City of London, melvich. Find out where the power of money really resides in this world...and has for centuries. In London. It ain't a question of idolizin' monarchs. It's a question of where the most powerful central banks in the world are and who makes the monetary decisions at the topmost levels. Very few people idolize monarchs anymore....but everyone bows down to the God of money every friggin' day of their lives...whether they like it or not. They serve it. They obey it. They worship it. They fear it. They desire it. They lust after it. They are slaves to the stuff. They'll do pretty much anything for a large enough amount of it. Trust me. Them that don't play that game...people like Crazy Horse, Joan of Arc or Jesus...they end up dead at a young age. Their absolute refusal to bow down and worship the all-devouring God of money will simply not be tolerated by the ruling system as it exists in this world...and it's been around as long as anyone can remember. One law for the rich. Another for the poor. That's the power of money. - Chongo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:51 PM My favorite is Queen Maud Land. This is some one million square miles of Antarctica claimed by Norway. Waters off the coast are called King Haakon VII Sea. Norway also claims Peter I Island. It lies between the British Territory (Lizzieland) and the Australian Antarctic Territory (soon to be called Gillardland?). New Zealand also has an Antarctic claim (Ross Dependency). The French Territory is known as the District of French Southern and Antarctic Lands ( and Adélie). Chile and Argentina claim lands that overlap the British Territory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,Backwoodsman Date: 19 Dec 12 - 02:01 AM "It's just sick that we have any sort of jurisdiction over another country's land" Which 'other country' would that be? Do you know anything about Antarctica? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: banjoman Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:18 AM Now that she has her own country can we send her and all the rest of the royals and hangers on to live there - they could dine on penguins |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:20 AM Penguins are lovely. Why should they be eaten by Her Maj? Seaweed soup should suffice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:24 AM BTW, I only recently learned that the equivalent of the Northern Lights is called Aurora Australis in the southern hemisphere. (thread drift, sorry) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: banjoman Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:29 AM I meant the sort that come wrapped in silver paper. I would never condone any live penguin being eaten |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:33 AM LOL banjoman! ("P.p.p.pick up a penguin, Pheeleep. One's getting peckish,") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:36 AM No Eliza. It was her dad who had the stammer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:44 AM Poor old George. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: theleveller Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:11 AM I expect the people who suggested this are trying to hang on to the last vestiges of our empire. What utter silliness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:43 AM No. The old name, British Antarctic Territory, could have sufficed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 12 - 09:24 AM Your empire is alive and well, leveller, it's just not official any longer. It is being forcibly maintained primarily by the armed forces of the USA, with the UK playing a much secondary role in the military sense, but continuing to be a primary beneficiary of the results. When the UK could no longer afford the price of enforcing "Rule Britannia" on the world with the Royal Navy, the USA stepped into the breach and has carried on with that same imperial policy. It is an Anglo-nation alliance (USA/UK/Canada/Australia) that is presently dominating the once-colonial world and enforcing its will upon that world through financial and military means. The former colonies in places like Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America aren't official colonies anymore, but they might just as well be. The results for their people and resources are much the same as they were under colonialism. When they don't do what the Anglo-nation alliance requires of them, they experience "regime change"...either by invasion or by foreign-backed civil conflicts and/or coups that bring down Third World governments who won't cooperate with the Anglo-American empire's interests. That's an old story. It's been happening since the end of WWII, and it happened first in Iran, back in the 1950s, through a CIA-backed coup which installed the Shah. The Iranians have not forgotten, but most of the western public doesn't even know about it, unless they are individuals who love to study political history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Pete Jennings Date: 19 Dec 12 - 09:37 AM It's been happening since the Romans... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Dec 12 - 10:08 AM That is nonsense LH. The former colonies are almost all now members of the Commonwealth, and very happy to be so or they would quit. A couple that were not former colonies have applied to join too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 12 - 10:22 AM The UK used to rule over Iraq and Iran and Egypt and various other parts of the Middle East, Keith. They took a lot of it from the Turks at the end of WWI. The primary interest of the UK in those areas was the oil, and the general strategic importance of the region in regards to neighbouring regions, trade routes, etc. That hasn't changed. What was once accomplished primarily through British force of arms is now being accomplished primarily through American force of arms. The military lifting is being done by the USA, but it's being done not just for the USA but for the entire Anglo-US alliance...with significant assistance from the French and some others in NATO as well. It's imperial action. As Pete says, it's been happening since the Romans. I don't have any objections to the Commonwealth. Seems like a good idea to me. I do have objections to invasion and forcible regime change in other lands through various covert actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Elizabeth Land From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Dec 12 - 01:19 PM OK. Leave the new colonialism to China. They might do a more efficient job of keeping the unruly in line. |
