When George I got handed the throne, there *was* no Germany. Just lots of itty bitty German-speaking states. Prussia, Hanover, like that. The king of *one* German state, Hanover, became also the king of England, Scotland, &c. And, like James I before him, he was independently King of two different countries: England and Scotland in James's case, England and Hanover in George's case. (Okay, England, Scotland, Hanover. My bad.) When Great Britain was unified, Hanover was *not* included in the unification. And when William was succeeded by his niece, Victoria, the Hanoverian throne became separated from the British throne, because Hanover followed Salic laws and could not have a sovereign Queen.
Granny, first you have to make an itty bitty hole...
I know all this.
Zoe - I'm going to say this in the most kindly manner possible. Sometimes, it is really frustrating to be having a serious conversation, and have someone make comments that seem to indicate they haven't read the conversation, but want to pick one statement out of context and start an argument. Somehow, it's different from the skippers and skimmers who play catch up and join in (we all do that), or the wonderful thing that happens when our too-deep-thought turns to jokes and laughter.
I think what's involved here is the fact that you made a statement that wasn't very grounded in fact. Someone went to great pains to correct you politely, and you've now just brushed it off with ragtime.
It's a conversation killer, and I don't understand the purpose. You aren't breaking any rules, or anything like that, but it chases people away from threads, well, this person anyhow.
I think what's involved here is the fact that you made a statement that wasn't very grounded in fact. Someone went to great pains to correct you politely, and you've now just brushed it off with ragtime.
Cindy, I understand your objection and I apologise if you are upset. However when I am speaking about my own viewpoint of my own history in my own country it is only polite to let me finish. I would never lecture you on finer points of American history, society or governance, please show me the same respect.
However when I am speaking about my own viewpoint of my own history in my own country it is only polite to let me finish.
Let you finish?!? It's a message board! It's kind of hard to interrupt people. If you hit "Post", you finished.
I would never lecture you on finer points of American history, society or governance, please show me the same respect.
Oh, give me a freaking break. Because Betsy's American, she's not allowed to be a student of British history? That's insane troll logic on monkey crack with a side order of WTF?
Besides which, Jim ET isn't American, and your response to him was on the same lines.
Zoe, you made a factually incorrect statement about European history. If an American corrects you rather than a European, it doesn't make them wrong.
Sure she can be a student. I can study American history she can study Scottish, English, Irish and Welsh if she likes.
And if you say something patently wrong, is she allowed to correct you?
And if you say something patently wrong, is she allowed to correct you?
She's welcome to produce primary, secondary and/or tertiary evidence to repudiate my interpretation.
Why, thank you.
George I assumed the British throne in 1714 and died in 1727.
Ernst Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, 5th son of George III became King of Hanover in 1837 when his niece, Victoria I, assumed the British throne due to Salic law.
Bismarck unified Germany in 1871, having annexed Hanover in 1866
So, the Germans never controlled the British throne. There was no Germany during the period when a King of Hanover was also King of Britain. The two titles were separated bloodlessly when a woman succeeded to the British throne.
