[SprCForr]

Time for a general warning here too, I see.

The trolling and flaming stops.

[Tman1]

That's the correlation I was getting at. If Manitoba or any other province could outgrow its age old symbolism of the Union Jack, Quebec could also. Its still clinging on to old french symbols.

[Gunnair]

Tman1 Tman1:

Ever watch/read that Hornblower series?

Yes, and it doesn't stand a chance against Patrick O'Brian.

[Tman1]

I'll have to take a look at those books. I tried watching the Sharpe movies and I like Sean Bean but couldn't get past Sharpes Enemy.

[SprCForr]

Patrick O'Brien's stuff is totally different.

I think you'll enjoy it and I heartily recommend his series.

[Gunnair]

Tman1 Tman1:

I'll have to take a look at those books. I tried watching the Sharpe movies and I like Sean Bean but couldn't get past Sharpes Enemy.

I have to admit the only Sharpe books I enjoyed were the prequels in India.

Now thw Flashman Series by George MacDonald-Fraser (who also wrote the MacAuslan series) is the only other series I've come across that holds a candle to Patrick O'Brian.

[maldonsfecht]

I'll have to recommend Canadian author C.C. Humphrey's series to anyone interested in Cornwell's books... his Jack Absolute Series is absolutely wonderful... telling of the days of the Plains of Abraham, the American Revolution and paying special attention to the Natives Allies of His Majesty and more...
Thoroughly satisfying reads!

Also, the Cornwell book entitled REDCOAT... not a series, but a great single read!

[maldonsfecht]

Oh, and one more that I read after picking it up in Edinburgh... Rob Roy by Sir Walter Scott... the movie was good, the book- better! (and you can feel extra smart reading it because it's in the literature section as opposed to fiction)

[maldonsfecht]

Tman1 Tman1:

That's the correlation I was getting at. If Manitoba or any other province could outgrow its age old symbolism of the Union Jack, Quebec could also. Its still clinging on to old french symbols.

I wouldn't say that we Anglophiles nor the Quebecois are "clinging" on to our old symbols anymore than one would accuse the people of Nunavut as doing so for putting the Inukshuk/Inuksuk on their flag...

As everyone's probably seen by now, I'm one of those quote unquote British is better types about here...

My great to the xth power grandfather sat in the first Nova Scotia government, his fought at Louisbourg, and his came to the American colonies in 1634, so I like to think we're fairly well established about these here parts

Don't get me wrong, I am first and foremost Canadian and would defend any Canadian of any background in Canada from an outsider (even an Englishman ) but I don't believe that tearing down symbols from Britain, that was key to Canada's ability to grow and function in the world, is progress.

[raydan]

Tman1 Tman1:

How? There are regions in France (not sure if they have provinces or states...) that have the fleur de lys symbol, just like the union jack at the corner of a provincial flag. They are both the same thing. My opinion, Manitoba has no business with the Union Jack as the province was created because the government of Canada didn't want to deal with the Metis and other settlers and doesn't have the same history or closeness of Britian that Ontario does.

Yeah, but the Fleur de Lys/France link doesn't bother people in Quebec, even to the point that they do not see it. It has been all but removed from our minds. I can't say that we hold the French very dearly in our hearts. The Fleur de Lys is ours now.

English Canada still has that link to England because of the Queen and the Governor General. Of course, the Union Jack is a symbol of that link. I find it surprising (but not in a bad way) that it seems to bother some people in English Canada (I'm guessing it's not only natives) to see that symbol on their flags.

[Tman1]

raydan raydan:

Yeah, but the Fleur de Lys/France link doesn't bother people in Quebec, even to the point that they do not see it. It has been all but removed from our minds. I can't say that we hold the French very dearly in our hearts. The Fleur de Lys is ours now.

English Canada still has that link to England because of the Queen and the Governor General. Of course, the Union Jack is a symbol of that link. I find it surprising (but not in a bad way) that it seems to bother some people in English Canada (I'm guessing it's not only natives) to see that symbol on their flags.

Well then. You don't hold the french very dearly but still hold their symbols. Fluer de Lys is theirs and but it will still remain French (France) as origin. Same thing with Canada and Britain. Doesn't mean we have a umbiblical cord with them.

Canada as a whole (and that includes Quebec as I don't see country status on them) remains linked to the Queen and the Governor General. Which brings us back to the point of symbolism on a flag. Some provinces have a union jack as a link to Britian, some don't. Funny how you paint ROC as clinging on to Britain but (as much as you don't like it or deny it) Quebec remains linked to French symbols, regardless whether or not they think it is 'theirs'. Odd that you can't see the similarites here...

[raydan]

Tman1 Tman1:

raydan raydan:

Yeah, but the Fleur de Lys/France link doesn't bother people in Quebec, even to the point that they do not see it. It has been all but removed from our minds. I can't say that we hold the French very dearly in our hearts. The Fleur de Lys is ours now.

English Canada still has that link to England because of the Queen and the Governor General. Of course, the Union Jack is a symbol of that link. I find it surprising (but not in a bad way) that it seems to bother some people in English Canada (I'm guessing it's not only natives) to see that symbol on their flags.

Well then. You don't hold the french very dearly but still hold their symbols. Fluer de Lys is theirs and but it will still remain French (France) as origin. Same thing with Canada and Britain. Doesn't mean we have a umbiblical cord with them.

Canada as a whole (and that includes Quebec as I don't see country status on them) remains linked to the Queen and the Governor General. Which brings us back to the point of symbolism on a flag. Some provinces have a union jack as a link to Britian, some don't. Funny how you paint ROC as clinging on to Britain but (as much as you don't like it or deny it) Quebec remains linked to French symbols, regardless whether or not they think it is 'theirs'. Odd that you can't see the similarites here...

$1:

The Fleurdelisé takes its white cross from the ancient royal flags of France and its white fleurs-de-lis and blue field from a banner honouring the Virgin Mary reputedly carried by French-Canadian militia at General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm's victory at Carillon (now Ticonderoga, New York). Contrary to popular belief, the fleurs-de-lis are not taken from the banner of the kings of France, who used golden fleurs-de-lis. The white fleurs-de-lis on Quebec's flag are symbols of purity, which originally represented the Virgin Mary.

I'm not saying that there isn't a link to France in the flag.

If the Quebec government decided to change the flag tomorrow, there would be an outcry from the people in Quebec, not because we are removing that link, but because the flag identifies Quebec today.

If I understand correctly the situation in Manitoba, some people want to remove the symbol of "the heritage from their British Colonial rule" and others want to keep it.

[EyeBrock]

Tman1 Tman1:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

As the Duke of Normandy he might have had some requirements of loyalty to Phillip, but that didn't stop him from attacking other French domains as did William II and ignoring French Kings, and England was not a vassal state to France. William II son Henry paid no such homage from the Norman possessions in France to the weak French kings and scared the shite out of most of France.
The Plantagenet kings of England actively fought lengthy wars in France to take further chunks of French soil to become blessed Blighty.

So you agree that as Duke of Normandy, he had 'requirments' (as per usual in the Medieval world of status) of loyalty to the French king. Great. Why dismiss it as 'unfounded nonsense' in the beginning? Interesting.

I never said England was a "vassal state to France". I declared that because of loyalties bound as a Duke, that perhaps the French king might percieve William I's English kingdom as a 'possession' for France which I have not yet recieved a satisfactory counter-argument for. Maybe the French kings believed that England was their posession because of William, maybe not. Which brings us to why England invades France.

$1:

William II son Henry paid no such homage from the Norman possessions in France to the weak French kings and scared the shite out of most of France.
The Plantagenet kings of England actively fought lengthy wars in France to take further chunks of French soil to become blessed Blighty.

This is irrelevant, so don't try to feed me your notion of history here. I already stated above concerning English kings and their claims to territory on France due to lineage and marriage. You chose to ignore it.

$1:

I can't recall any further large scale or successful invasions of England by French kings/dukes or others trying to enforce any so-called vassal-dom after William I (1066 and all that). That's why the Channel islands remain the last parts of the old kingdom of France that are still British. I don't see any French possessions in England's sphere of influence.

Then you clearly, as indicated before, don't know anything about Medieval terminology or history. Claiming a territory wasn't just about invading another land, it was because of marriage alliances and lineage. Why do you think England could claim so much territory in France? Marriage, lineage....you speak so much about England taking so much land in France and can't grasp as to its foundations. Why do you think a Norman Duke claimed the English throne? Why Rolo was granted land in Normandy by the king of France, what a vassal is, its importance to a king. While you dig out your history book on that....

$1:

To say England was a vassal state of France is not only simplistic, it's wrong.

Again, I never said England was a vassal state and you are twisting things around. Not only is that desparation, its unethical and you haven't proven me wrong on anything of the sort.

$1:

But hey Tman, you can get things wrong and still be a clever chap, really!

Back at you. You can be ignorant on Medieval history, English or not and still be a clever chap (most of the time) really!.

tman. I'm not getting into this anymore. I have my views on this that are supported in history. You are wrong.

[Tman1]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

tman. I'm not getting into this anymore. I have my views on this that are supported in history. You are wrong.

What views? You said that William I wasn't a vassal to the king of France then backtracked and said he had 'requirements' to the king indicating that you didn't know what a vassal was or its importance in the Middle Ages. Then you go on to say that England wasn't a vassal state which I never said all the while neglecting the fact that French culture was the norm in your beloved England. In fact, why the hell did you even quote me? It's like you were trying to add little irrelevant bits and pieces to the argument and failing in the attempt. In fact, where ever was I wrong which you keep indicating?

You're a good guy and enjoy these debates but this is just cheap on your part. If you're going to back down knowing you were wrong, just say so instead of sloppy techniques. History is my fortee and it seems you tackled more than you could chew on this and tried to get away with it and you initiated.

I don't go on military threads saying you are wrong do I?

[Toro]

I think Manitoba's new flag should be of the Riders beating the Bombers in the Grey Cup.