• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Milestones

Go to CruxDreams.com
Today 80 years ago, on August 7th 1942, US Marines invaded the island of Guadalcanal, part of the British Solomon Islands.

The Japanese were building a base on the island, including an airfield. If they would succeed, Australia would become isolated, since the base would control a large area of airspace and shipping routes east of it.
Guadalcanal was the first US amphibious action in the war (the previous on had taken place in 1998). The battel would last several months and end with Japanese retreat - the first land victory of the US in the Pacific.
In the mean time, there were also several navel battles, including the Battle of Savo island (one of the US Navy's greatest naval defeats) and the Battle of Santa Cruz, in which the US would loose their second aircraft carrier in the battle (USS Hornet), after the earlier loss of USS Wasp.
 
Eulalia said:
This surely qualifies as a milestone!


God save the King! ​
Click to expand...
Just to explain:

The UK Monarch rules "By the will of the People". Those guys (and one gal?) were the representatives of about 200 of 'the people' who had just agreed that Prince Charles was fit and proper to remain as King.

Due diligence and governance and all that corporate stuff has a 400+ year history in the UK.
 
Apostate said:
Have those outfits changed any since the 1500s?

View attachment 1231041

Just curious. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not much, the Royal Arms, which are the front of most of the jackets, can be changed but haven't been for ages.
And their titles: Garter Principal King of Arms outside St. James's Palace, London, and then by the Lord Lyon King of Arms at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh.
 
I have always been thankful to be alive to witness historical events. I'll be adding this to the list.

I am sorry for his personal loss, and wish him well and success in his new role.
 
old slave said:
(and one gal?)
Click to expand...
Yes, Anne Curry, a Prof. of Medieval History, appointed Arundel Herald Extraordinary back in May, the first female herald of England, though in Scotland we've had two Heralds in Ordinary (i.e. full-time) - Elizabeth Roads was Snawdoun Herald (appointed 2010), and Yvonne Holton is Islay Herald.

It is a wee bit male-dominated - there ought, of course, to be ranks of slavegirls playing their part.
 
Last edited:
Eulalia said:
Yes, Anne Curry, Prof. of Medieval History at Southampton, appointed Arundel Herald Extraordinary back in May, the first female herald of England, though in Scotland we've had two Heralds in Ordinary (i.e. full-time) - Elizabeth Roads was Snawdoun Herald (appointed 2010), and Yvonne Holton is Islay Herald.

It is a wee bit male-dominated - there ought, of course, to be ranks of slavegirls playing their part.
Click to expand...
What is the point of being King if you don't have slavegirls?
 
montycrusto said:
Luckily @old slave was around for the coronation of Edward the Confessor and can remember all the ceremonial details!
Click to expand...
Jollyrei said:
It's good to have chaps like him around to make sure it's done right. So many standards have fallen.
Click to expand...
In which case, Old Slave would certainly reveal that, in Edward's era, kings were not assigned by hereditary succession, but by appointment by the nobility, as a kind of president for life (which could be short-cut if the king displeased too much nobility). Of course, all kings tried to keep the power in the family, and they tried to create a support for, and politically maneuvered for hereditary succession! Having the church on one's side, was always helpful for this purpose!:icon_writing:
 
Loxuru said:
In which case, Old Slave would certainly reveal that, in Edward's era, kings were not assigned by hereditary succession, but by appointment by the nobility, as a kind of president for life (which could be short-cut if the king displeased too much nobility). Of course, all kings tried to keep the power in the family, and they tried to create a support for, and politically maneuvered for hereditary succession! Having the church on one's side, was always helpful for this purpose!:icon_writing:
Click to expand...
I always thought there was some farcical aquatic ceremony involved, with watery tarts lobbing scimitars around.. :thinking:
 
Loxuru said:
In which case, Old Slave would certainly reveal that, in Edward's era, kings were not assigned by hereditary succession, but by appointment by the nobility, as a kind of president for life (which could be short-cut if the king displeased too much nobility). Of course, all kings tried to keep the power in the family, and they tried to create a support for, and politically maneuvered for hereditary succession! Having the church on one's side, was always helpful for this purpose!:icon_writing:
Click to expand...
Yes, the 'Accession Council' which preceded that public proclamation was a trace of that, with the Privy Council (made up of serving and retired PMs and Cabinet Ministers, senior civil servants, top judges, etc.), along with the archbishops, and representatives of the Lords and Commons, and those various ceremonial personages, all confirming and acclaiming the new sovereign. In the Gaelic-speaking world and probably among Britons, Gauls etc., we haven't much evidence for them) the principle was that sovereignty would go to the eldest physically and mentally capable member of the derbfine, i.e. all the male descendants of a grandfather who had been king, so not necessarily the eldest son of the deceased monarch. But whatever the legal principles, there were always rival claimants, often rival lines of descent, dynasties.

As you may guess, I do have a fascination with what Walter Bagehot called the 'dignified parts' of the constitution - the pomp and circumstance, ritual and ceremony - and I'm certainly going to have a feast of that in this period of state occasions! Bagehot was rather cynical, he distinguished the 'dignified parts' as those which 'impress the masses', from the 'efficient parts' that 'govern the masses'. But plenty of political thinkers, anthropologists and sociologists have shown that it's more complex than simply keeping the plebs in their place.

And I won't deny that my fantasies of a hierarchical order governed by rules and rituals that give everyone their place, their role - even the humblest slavegirl - can't be divorced from that fascination!
 
Eulalia said:
Yes, the 'Accession Council' which preceded that public proclamation was a trace of that, with the Privy Council (made up of serving and retired PMs and Cabinet Ministers, senior civil servants, top judges, etc.), along with the archbishops, and representatives of the Lords and Commons, and those various ceremonial personages, all confirming and acclaiming the new sovereign. In the Gaelic-speaking world and probably among Britons, Gauls etc., we haven't much evidence for them) the principle was that sovereignty would go to the eldest physically and mentally capable member of the derbfine, i.e. all the male descendants of a grandfather who had been king, so not necessarily the eldest son of the deceased monarch. But whatever the legal principles, there were always rival claimants, often rival lines of descent, dynasties.

As you may guess, I do have a fascination with what Walter Bagehot called the 'dignified parts' of the constitution - the pomp and circumstance, ritual and ceremony - and I'm certainly going to have a feast of that in this period of state occasions! Bagehot was rather cynical, he distinguished the 'dignified parts' as those which 'impress the masses', from the 'efficient parts' that 'govern the masses'. But plenty of political thinkers, anthropologists and sociologists have shown that it's more complex than simply keeping the plebs in their place.

And I won't deny that my fantasies of a hierarchical order governed by rules and rituals that give everyone their place, their role - even the humblest slavegirl - can't be divorced from that fascination!
Click to expand...
Pomp and ceremony can be fun. But rigid hierarchies like Plato's "anthill" society, where the philosopher king rules with everyone in his/her assigned place, are not. Those are kind of like "Brave New World".

Feynman has a funny story from Los Alamos--I assume it's accurate, although he may have embellished a little.
Neils Bohr and his son had been smuggled out of Denmark to New Mexico to build the bomb. Bohr of course was in all the meetings.
Feynman gets a call from "Jim Baker". It was Bohr's son (their code name was Baker) asking for a meeting. They hash out some ideas (apparently Bohr talked softly and was hard to understand), and at the end he lit his pipe and said "I guess we can call in the big boys now". "Jim Baker" later told Feynman what had happened. Everyone was deferential to Bohr--"yes, of course, Dr. Bohr". But he told his son there was a "little guy" (Feynman was short) in the back who isn't afraid of me. So he wanted to run his idea by Feynman first and get an honest critique. So hierarchy has its downside.

I do tend to tear up at funeral pageantry, but that is mainly due to the person. I got pretty choked up when they finished excavating the ruins of the World Trade Center, and the crew marched out of the hole following bagpipers. Resilience.
 
montycrusto said:
I always thought there was some farcical aquatic ceremony involved, with watery tarts lobbing scimitars around.. :thinking:
Click to expand...
No I think that’s for emperors!

Eulalia said:
there ought, of course, to be ranks of slavegirls playing their part
Click to expand...
The oldest traditions are the best! But in the modern era there should be equality of opportunity so if a male slave is good enough he should also be among the ranks of slaves…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom