View Poll Results: I support:

Voters
193. You may not vote on this poll
  • Scandinavism (the idea of Scandinavia as a unified region or a single nation).

    56 29.02%
  • Nordism (Nordic economic co-operation and integration).

    53 27.46%
  • Another form of Scandinavian or Nordic unity.

    16 8.29%
  • None of the above, I believe the Scandinavian/Nordic countries should retain their independence.

    61 31.61%
  • Other.

    7 3.63%
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910
Results 91 to 94 of 94

Thread: Scandinavism/Nordism

  1. #91
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 11:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    394
    Thanked in
    241 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnish Swede View Post
    Sorry, what you meant by ''community'' above?
    Similar to the European Community before it became the European Union - close economic cooperation, lots of cultural exchanges and easy travel arrangements but each country has immigration control and its own currency (money).

    About Sami people, I don't think there is any justification to discriminate against them - they are about as European (genetically) as North Italians and, like you say, they have been in Fenno-Scandinavia for a very long time. The numbers for Muslims are only really bad for Sweden. Obviously you should not let any more in. The ones who are already there are better kept segregated in their own communities - if they are 'integrated' then they are more likely to mix blood with the natives.

  2. #92
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 06:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    129
    Thanked in
    107 Posts
    Actually, the most appropriate organization would be through the intermarriage of the British and Norwegian royal families, bringing unity to the House of Oldenburg. The royals in Sweden and Denmark are foreign parasites and ought to be replaced by the closest to natively Northern possible, for the Oldenburgers are actually Saxons. It would be a cross between Alfred the Great and Knut the Great, by having, say, the Saxon dynasty based in Winchester again or London and yet, aligning the four Nordic kingdoms again, with Celtic and Uralic protectorates. Otherwise, I would prefer to preserve the territorial integrity of each, with some border adjustments.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Rodskarl Dubhgall For This Useful Post:


  4. #93
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 11:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    394
    Thanked in
    241 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Baorn View Post
    Actually, the most appropriate organization would be through the intermarriage of the British and Norwegian royal families, bringing unity to the House of Oldenburg. The royals in Sweden and Denmark are foreign parasites and ought to be replaced by the closest to natively Northern possible, for the Oldenburgers are actually Saxons. It would be a cross between Alfred the Great and Knut the Great, by having, say, the Saxon dynasty based in Winchester again or London and yet, aligning the four Nordic kingdoms again, with Celtic and Uralic protectorates. Otherwise, I would prefer to preserve the territorial integrity of each, with some border adjustments.
    A royal personal union between Britain and a Nordic country would be cool. Essentially, the current British royal line is still the House of Hanover from George I. In theory, an independent Normandy could also share a monarch with us since its last King was John of England before it was absorbed into France.

    You see my plan!

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Aelfgar For This Useful Post:


  6. #94
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 06:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    129
    Thanked in
    107 Posts
    I'm not sure how the Windsors, who are a cadet branch of the House of Saxony, are Hanoverians. Similar to the Stewarts' fate in Jacobitism, Hanoverians were deliberately bypassed by having Victoria take the Throne instead of Ernest, but his family lost their kingdom to Germany. Despite dynastic relationships with German Protestant Holland, Denmark and Hanover, antidotes to Roman Catholic France, Spain and Sicily, it seemed perhaps easier to take the Crown of India, but we see today's results. Also similar to the Stewarts, the Hanoverians faced a popular republican revolution, although I don't count what happened in Ireland, being a French conspiracy and all. Union with Scotland and Ireland, along with coddling the Papacy, was not really what proud Englishmen believed in. Unlike the Stewarts' many bastards, I'm not sure if there are even any extant royal dukes in Britain of the Hanoverian dynasty.

    People forget that Sophia of Hanover was heiress to the Protestant Stewarts and that the Union was due to the Stewart inheritance on both sides of King James's family, of Stewart and Tudor, although it was technically illegal for them to take the Crown, per the Henrician Acts of Succession, along with the Edwardian Device, as well as earlier laws passed by Parliament to ban foreigners from inheriting the Throne, despite their superior genealogical claims. The Hanoverians were foreigners no different than the Stewarts, keeping the government out of the hands of the People. In this fashion, it is certainly the case that the Saxon Windsors followed Hanoverian footsteps, but tried mitigation through identity politics, including changing the name of government from Empire to Commonwealth. Those of Saxony lost their inheritance by choosing the Kaiser in the Great War, after which, the family was naturalised as Windsor. The Queen wants to keep the Windsor name going, but unless there's only one occupant of the Throne, the "Mountbatten" family is really just a reboot of Queen Anne's husband's dynasty, from Denmark-Norway, only this time, it's Denmark-Greece.

    As for Normandy, that ought only ever have been a mere dependency, because that's a spillover population of the Saxon Shore on the south coast of the Channel and Danish exiles from Alfred. They both just followed the Bretons there. If you look at the map, it's plain as day how there's an ethnic unity between England, Lothian and Normandy in the East, Wales, Strathclyde and Brittany in the West. Between the Forth and Clyde, or Somme and Loire, all folks have common origins. Political borders and ethnicity don't exactly coincide, but it's more accurate than for some others. Scotland North of the Antonine Wall, Mann and Ireland are all in another spectrum of folks in the Isles.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •