Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 128

Thread: Do You Consider Yourself To Be British & Do You Value The United Kingdom?

  1. #41
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 09:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelcynn Beorn View Post
    Not really, it's colonisation. Multiculturalism is the intentional mixing of nationalities, but that was never the intent in Ulster. The intention was to settle the land with ethnic Scots and English to make it easier to govern and more loyal to the crown.
    It is colonisation. The bi product of colonisation being multicultural nations . Intent doesn't come into it. It's a fact by the very action

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelcynn Beorn View Post

    I've known many people who had absolutely no interest in politics or nationalism, and who still differentiated between blacks and Asians born in the UK and native Englishmen. I think the only people who don't do so instinctively are those people born within the last 20-30 years who have been bombarded with multicultural and multiracial propaganda since the day of their birth. And even then it's only a minority who really take those ideals to heart.
    I am aware that people aren't colour blind and that it bothers some more than others but what purpose does it serve to divide people into " true english " or " not true english " :

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelcynn Beorn View Post
    Yes, there are millions of true Englishmen, and none of them are black or Asian.
    In your opinion. There must be people who disagree because if you take a look they have british passports. They are recognised as british subjects in the eyes of the law. If an asian born in the uk wishes to consider themselves english why should it become an issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelcynn Beorn View Post
    Nobody can claim to be English unless they are accepted as one by the majority of English people, were raised with English cultrue, and are at least partially of English descent.
    Thanks for telling me what the criteria is.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    I am aware that people aren't colour blind and that it bothers some more than others but what purpose does it serve to divide people into " true english " or " not true english "
    You're acting as if it's an artificial division. There is a difference between such people, whether you like it or not.

    English can mean somewhat different things depending on the context, but "true English" means someone not only born and raised in England, but who is ethnically English as well. That's just ordinary usage of language; if you want to change the definition of what ethnicity is, then that's up to you, but you'll have trouble communicating with people if you invent your own definitions of words What words mean essentially depends on convention.

    A nation or ethnicity is supposed to be tied together by common bonds. If that only includes where you were born and certain aspects of culture, and doesn't take the past into account, I just don't think the bonds are going to be very strong; they'll be shallow and easily broken, and the members' sense of common feeling or belonging will be much weaker. That's just how it naturally is with humans.

    And the fact is that people of foreign background generally don't feel nearly as attached to their adopted country and it's people as those who share ancestry (or at least whose ancestors from way back were fellow countrymen, sharing the same history, culture and identity) with those of their country.

    There must be people who disagree because if you take a look they have british passports. They are recognised as british subjects in the eyes of the law.
    It's the same with plenty of people who can't really even speak English, were born outside England and have spent the bulk of their lifetime outside England. Citizenship doesn't really mean anything these days, as far as belonging to a nation is concerned.

    Your definition of what binds a nation seems to take only the present into account. It can be helpful to compare nations with families. Would you feel the same bond with someone who had walked into your parents' family house when he was say, ten years old, took on your surname and was raised with you, but bore no particular family resemblance, and shared no recent ancestry with you, as you would with a true brother?

    No doubt under ordinary circumstances you'd have more of a common bond with him than someone you weren't raised with, but I doubt that it would be quite the same as a true brother. Someone who entered the household as an infant would also be more of an integral part of the family, but still, not the same as someone who shares the same parents and ancestry, a close resemblance etc. Suppose your name is say, Johnstone; an adopted individual wouldn't exactly be a 'true' Johnstone would he? It's just as valid a concept as a "true" Englishman.

    There are degrees of it, and whilst I think adoption is a perfectly reasonable thing (indeed necessary to an extent), it only comes about because of circumstances which shouldn't happen. It's not ideal, even though obviously far better than the alternative of leaving someone without a family.

    If families were built simply as children of various natural parents getting together with foster parents, I don't think that's a recipe for close-knit, coherent families. Mankind just wasn't made like that. It's the same with nations. Adoption on a small scale is workable and doesn't cause problems (except in some cases for the adopted), but on a large scale it would render the concepts of family and ethnicity meaningless (and destroy them as entities), and that's the intention of the Neo-Marxists.

    So there you go, that's a bit of a collection of thoughts, rather than a coherent post, but anyway.....

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    Hardly left wing thinking......

    .....Real left wing stuff
    I should point out here that the left wing in general are hypocrites of a high order. What I mean by their promotion of left-wing ideologies is that they are forcing it on the people they govern.

    It's just the same with the Communists in Russia and China (etc.). They want to make everyone else levelled out and equal, with common ownership of property, but once they get in power, they love it up there, and aren't going to be equal to anybody. But they'll have everybody else living a socialist way of life.

    I think many of them start off genuinely believing the socialist ideals are the way things should be, that the world would be a better place, but being rich and powerful of course makes them feel good, people don't rush to give up that lifestyle. They'll be capitalists any day if it suits their selfish ends.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Elgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 7th, 2011 @ 08:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    England England
    State
    Mercia Mercia
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    None of your business!
    Politics
    Ethnonationalism
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    198
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    The comercial deal you refer to took place after the final military defeat of the Gaelic leaders in Ulster in 1603 (after a decade of sieges, pitched battles and scorched earth).

    With the treaty of Melifont (1603), English Law was imposed in Ulster, and the Gaelic system was in it's Death throes. Any minor chief in Ulster who stayed on his land and had not submitted to English rule at that point, couldn't expect much mercy.

    With their military power utterly at an end and their destinies and even their physical safety no longer within their own hands the Gaelic "Earls" of Ulster fled Ireland of good in 1607.

    If the sale of land you mention took place in 1606 instead of 1607, then all I'll say is that it didn't take a crystal ball to see what the future held for Ulster chieftains.

    Whatever resistance continued after that point, was disorganised and took place on the local scale. It was a case of desperate individuals attacking planters to whom their land had been given away. Often the land was given in payment for military service rendered to the Crown during the 9 years war.

    Here's the standard account of the period leading up to the plantation of Ulster;








    The treaty of 1922 was signed only under the treat of immediate and terrible war, it was ratified not by the will of the Irish people but by the fear of the people.

    As far as the modern conflict is concerned, that dates back to around 1970 when Catholic families were being attacked in their homes and burned out of entire streets in belfast, due to loyalist resentment at catholic civil-rights marches.

    The RUC (Ulster police force) were unable or unwilling to restore order.

    Just as the system was about to colapse in anarchy, the British army was sent in to Ulster, Ironically, to defend the Catholics areas in Belfast from loyalist attack.

    However, old wounds had been opened up, para-military groups sprang up on both sides of the conflict and the situation was never really normalised again, until lately...

    As to the rights and wrongs of the paramilitary conflict, It has to be said that one man's murderer is often another man's defender.

    However, I think it is fair to say that the killing of civilians is always a most atrocious act, and on that point wrongs have been done on both sides.
    Well, forgetting the fact that the sources I quote clearly confirm that the indigenous Irish were not overwhelmed by the English and that most Northern Irish Protestans legitimately purchased their lands, let's turn our attention to the Battle of the Boyne.

    In an Irish context, however, the war was a sectarian and ethnic conflict, in many ways a re-run of the Irish Confederate Wars of 50 years earlier. For the Jacobites, the war was fought for Irish sovereignty, religious toleration for Catholicism, and land ownership. The Catholic upper classes had lost almost all their lands after Cromwell's conquest, as well as the right to hold public office, practice their religion, and sit in the Irish Parliament. They saw the Catholic King James as a means of redressing these grievances and securing the autonomy of Ireland from the English Parliament. [B]To these ends, under Richard Talbot, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, they had raised an army to restore James to his throne after the Glorious Revolution. By 1690, they controlled all of Ireland except for the province of Ulster. Most of James II's troops at the Boyne were Irish Catholics.

    Conversely, for the Williamites, the war was about maintaining Protestant and British rule in Ireland. They feared for both their lives and their property if James and his Catholic supporters were to rule Ireland. In particular, they dreaded a repeat of the Irish Rebellion of 1641, which had been marked by widespread massacres of Protestants. For these reasons, Irish Protestants fought en masse for William III. Many of the Williamite troops at the Boyne, including their very effective irregular cavalry, were Protestants from Ulster, who called themselves "Eniskilleners" and were referred to by contemporaries as "Scotch-Irish".
    We all know who was victorious...

    The Orangemen

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    They didn't take any active part in how their estates were run, any more than if they were foreign corporations in which they owned a few shares.
    Yes, because that's effectively what they were. They had no need to manage their estates, it was the wealthy local tenants who could manage their respective sub-estates, which is quite legitimate.

    The legislation I refer to, which made it possible for so many to die of starvation by the failure of one crop, in a country where food supply should have been various and abundant, was known as the Penal Laws;
    I'm very skeptical that the Penal Laws had anything at all to do with the poverty of certain sections of the Catholic population.

    Professor Lecky a British Protestant and ardent British sympathizer, said in his "History of Ireland in the 18th Century" that the object of the Penal Laws was threefold:
    Hahaha! Ardent British sympathiser, ay? In MacManus' extremist view perhaps.

    This is the most biased, anti-British analysis I've read for some time.

    "To deprive Catholics of all civil life; to reduce them to a condition of extreme, brutal ignorance; and, to disassociate them from the soil.:

    Lecky said, "He might with absolute justice, substitute Irish for Catholic, "and added a fourth objective: "To expatriate the race." Most scholars agree that the Penal Laws helped set the stage for the injustices that occurred during The Great Famine and fueled the fires of racism that were directed against the Irish by the British.
    Rubbish, the intent was to stamp out Catholicism, not to get rid of the Catholics themselves.

    Whatever the Penal Laws might have been, they had nothing to do with race. The idea was to turn Ireland into a peaceful Protestant country, no longer rebellious. Catholicism was one reason why Continental powers liked to use Ireland as a springboard to invade Britain, and of course the priests had their own agenda in stirring up rebellion against the British, in the name of Catholicism.

    People who didn't adhere to the Established Church were severely persecuted at various times, regardless of nationality, with their religious views being outlawed in many cases. The Irish weren't a persecuted race, it's just that they were often rebelling against the crown. If the inhabitants of say Yorkshire were doing that consistently, I think they would have been treated in the same way.

    And "most scholars"? Maybe most of the extremist nationalists.

    Lecky outlined the Penal Laws as follows:

    * The Catholic Church forbidden to keep church registers.
    * The Irish Catholic was forbidden the exercise of his religion.
    * He was forbidden to receive education.
    * He was forbidden to enter a profession.
    * He was forbidden to hold public office.
    * He was forbidden to engage in trade or commerce.
    * He was forbidden to live in a corporate town or within five miles thereof.
    * He was forbidden to own a horse of greater value than five pounds.
    * He was forbidden to own land.
    * He was forbidden to lease land.
    * He was forbidden to accept a mortgage on land in security for a loan.
    * He was forbidden to vote.
    * He was forbidden to keep any arms for his protection.
    * He was forbidden to hold a life annuity.
    * He was forbidden to buy land from a Protestant.
    * He was forbidden to receive a gift of land from a Protestant.
    * He was forbidden to inherit land from a Protestant.
    * He was forbidden to inherit anything from a Protestant.
    * He was forbidden to rent any land that was worth more than 30 shillings a year.
    * He was forbidden to reap from his land any profit exceeding a third of the rent.
    * He could not be guardian to a child.
    * He could not, when dying, leave his infant children under Catholic guardianship.
    * He could not attend Catholic worship.
    * He was compelled by law to attend Protestant worship.
    * He could not himself educate his child.
    * He could not send his child to a Catholic teacher.
    * He could not employ a Catholic teacher to come to his child.
    * He could not send his child abroad to receive education.
    Evidently Catholicism was effectively outlawed, like non-Conformism had been earlier. The idea was to make it so hard to be a Roman Catholic that it was worth switching to Protestantism. I suspect that it worked with most of the Catholic upper classes (But now they seem to be switching back to Catholicism again).

    So it's not so much that the Catholics were ground into the dirt, as that the poorest people were the ones who were most likely to retain their Catholicism. More educated wealthy folk would tend to be less under the thumb of the educated priests.

    * From: MacManus " the story of the Irish Race" 1921.Devin-Adair Publishing Co., New York.
    I don't think MacManus is an objective historian, by the look of it

  6. #46
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 09:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch View Post
    I should point out here that the left wing in general are hypocrites of a high order. What I mean by their promotion of left-wing ideologies is that they are forcing it on the people they govern.
    All ideologies are open to the charge of hypocrisy. It's no less hypocritical of the business conservative who spouts about nationalism and the people but would make unemployed all his workers if it was cheaper to employ foreign labour. Or the liberal who finds their love of liberty compromised by their love of the state. I don't think the left is anymore open to the charge than any other political ideology
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch View Post
    It's just the same with the Communists in Russia and China (etc.). They want to make everyone else levelled out and equal, with common ownership of property, but once they get in power, they love it up there, and aren't going to be equal to anybody. But they'll have everybody else living a socialist way of life.
    The dangers of what happened in Russia ( the subversion of a genuine " peoples revolt " ) had been noted long before the events took place and had been the subject of much scrutiny by left wing thinkers. It is worth noting that it took the Bolshevics years to control their biggest critics and main political threat within Russia , other communists
    There still remains , in the a western world , a real fear of a good example of socialist ideology in practise. This can most obviously be seen in the complete suppression of every democratically elected Left wing government in every part of the globe , ironically by the self confessed crusaders for democracy

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    All ideologies are open to the charge of hypocrisy. It's no less hypocritical of the business conservative who spouts about nationalism and the people but would make unemployed all his workers if it was cheaper to employ foreign labour. Or the liberal who finds their love of liberty compromised by their love of the state. I don't think the left is anymore open to the charge than any other political ideology
    How much hypocrisy is practised by each ideology is open to debate, but that's really beside the point anyway.

    The dangers of what happened in Russia ( the subversion of a genuine " peoples revolt " ) had been noted long before the events took place and had been the subject of much scrutiny by left wing thinkers. It is worth noting that it took the Bolshevics years to control their biggest critics and main political threat within Russia , other communists
    There still remains , in the a western world , a real fear of a good example of socialist ideology in practise. This can most obviously be seen in the complete suppression of every democratically elected Left wing government in every part of the globe , ironically by the self confessed crusaders for democracy
    But do you see my point? Just because the left might not "practise what they preach" when it comes to management of their own finance or property, or their status compared with the common people, that doesn't mean they're not hardline proponents of leftism. They are Neo-Marxists trying (and to far too great an extent, succeeding) to force their extremely left-wing philosophy on everybody, and multiculturalism is part of that.

    By the way, what do you mean by the "suppression" of democratically elected left-wing governments? How are they being suppressed?

  8. #48
    Senior Member stormlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 18th, 2017 @ 11:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Posts
    254
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    By suppression, I'd assume he's referring to, for example, the US (champions of democracy) illegally toppling fully democratically elected left wing governments in South America, particularly in the 70's and 80's. A recent example is Venezuela, which is being put under fairly severe pressure by the Americans because they are scared that the socialist government is going to mess with their oil supplies.

  9. #49
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,262
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    542
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    495
    Thanked in
    219 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rivalin View Post
    By suppression, I'd assume he's referring to, for example, the US (champions of democracy) illegally toppling fully democratically elected left wing governments in South America, particularly in the 70's and 80's.
    That was during the Cold War, to prevent the Soviets from acquiring anymore footholds in the New World. Cuba however, in spite of being just 90-miles from the US shore, is one of the few truly communist countries left (the other being North Korea). Apparently there was an agreement at the termination of the Cuban Missle Crisis between the US & USSR, that the US would not invade Cuba, an agreement still in force.

    There are currently many left-winged governments in South America, but the Cold War (US v. Russia) is over, at least for the moment in the New World.
    A recent example is Venezuela, which is being put under fairly severe pressure by the Americans because they are scared that the socialist government is going to mess with their oil supplies.
    What currently sits Venezuela apart from Cuba, is that Cuba has always been poor under Castro, limiting the ability of Castro to export his revolution, especially now that aid from the Soviet Union was cut off when that nation collapsed. There are no more Cuban adventures in places like El Salvador or Angola. But Venezuela is awashed with petrodollars. Hugo Chavez - who in spite of the fact that many view him as some kind of hero for "standing up to the US" - is a marxist thug. The rise in oil prices in recent years has been a bonanza to PtroVen, the national owned Oil company of Venezuela, allowing Chavez to buy the support of poor voters in Venezuela. There is also the danger the Hugo Chavez will form alliances with enemies of the US & fund guerrilla movements. However, Chavez has been in power for nearly 10-years, and he hasn't been overthrown yet. Chavez creates a lot of rhetoric to make it seem that he is being persecuted by the US, but it looks more like a PR scheme to built up his image among the poor of Venezuela & leftists worldwide. It seems more likely the US would invade Iran, before it would go after Chavez. If Chavez cut off oil exports to the US, the US could easily blockade Venezuela, blocking oil exports, imports of vital goods, leading to a quick overthrow of Chavez. For all of his anti-American rantings, Chavez has not made himself so dangerous to US interests yet, that he has needed to be overthrown.

  10. #50
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 09:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rivalin is right, That is exactly what I mean ............. the self proclaimed crusaders for world democracy have an avid contempt for democracy, even in their own countries . Their idea of democracy is a ruling elite of policy makers conducting matters for the benefit of the ruling elite whilst simultaneously convincing the mass of people that they live in a cherished democracy
    The same attitude can be seen through their actions in the rest of the world. Any country that does , or has,democratically ( its the key word here ) voted in a left wing government encounters a smeer campaign , sanctions , economic strangulation , invasion. The entire wrath of the hugely powerful west.
    The crusaders for democracy much prefer " their man " in wherever. Again the list of tyrants and despots the righteous west has installed/maintained is clear for all to see.They recently hung one in Iraq . It follows the same pattern.


    There are no exceptions. People who struggle to see this , quite frankly , don't want to see it. So I will leave off from compiling lists and events.

    Nicaragua's story is a good example of the basic blueprint of western destruction of left wing state and also serves as an insight into cold war propaganda .
    After the Sandinistas , a popular peoples movement , took charge of Nicaragua and started social reforms , there followed the usual harrassments sanctions , economic , political and military.
    The Sandinistas , who had hitherto resisted alligning themselves to any of the contemporary " communist " powers were forced into a position of having to rely on soviet aid. The link is made. The soviets can claim a victory and the west can throw the " Stalinist/marxist/trotskyites reds under the bed " book at them
    How easy is that?!!
    Everyones a winner........ with the cruel exception of the natives themselves who inherit a foreign power struggle that will ruin the country. The puppet regime safely installed the reprisals ( death ) against left wingers ,academics, union leaders, church leaders community leaders can go full speed ahead

    I think Chavez also deserves a fairer crack of the whip here.

    If the cold war was still in full swing Chavez would have inevitably been well known to us all in the west as the new Castro, Saddam Hussein etc etc
    Venezuela the new " soviet client state out to rule the world " * Evil laughter *
    But the cold war has thawed of late, and the big red bear doesn't scare us all anymore ( Al Qieda holds the title now, ........how timely )

    Chavez enjoys electoral winning margins , democratic ones too , of over 66%
    There isn't a western government in the world past or present that could claim such support .
    He is using the country's oil wealth to try to bring about an end to poverty and desease within the population. ( The Sandinistas also set in progress huge health innitiatives before their demise ) A good site to visit for those who are interested is www.venezuelanalysis.com
    The fact we , certainly here in Britain , don't here anything about goings on in Venezuela speaks volumes in my opinion. If there was a good example of socialist policies in action why in the world would our own governments expose us to it?
    No doubt when the middle easts oil/gas reserves have been secured for the west we might hear more about , what the oppositions opinion of Chavez's government are . Then we will know that the knives are out for Chavez and another democratically elected government will be overthrown by the crusaders for democracy.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hello from the United Kingdom
    By British and Proud in forum Introductions & Greetings
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Saturday, April 14th, 2018, 05:01 AM
  2. Questions About the United Kingdom
    By Englisc in forum England
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Saturday, April 14th, 2018, 04:25 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, February 2nd, 2017, 11:06 AM
  4. Classify Dukes of the United Kingdom
    By OneEnglishNorman in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 10:03 AM

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
  •