@PROkiller16 The British Empire was the largest by land mass, population and the richest. The Roman Empire was far smaller. However the Roman Empire had a higher percentage of the total world population.
give me the puke bucket seriously fuck sake its been a long time since the empire all you are now are a bunch of fools americas dogs............ sit ubu sit good dog
@constablenapweed you know this is actually getting quite pathetic, I advise you find something else to preoccupy your time to indulge your vulgar and barbaric attitude.
@MathiusK408 What I find offensive is your persistent walting. Stop pretending to be something you are not. However, I do find your use of cod victorian english amusing.
@9888972597 All right. So, let's then talk about what you "said." You called me "selfish." I don't know how did that came about? And as for your comment on the Queen. Well, to be candid, she doesn't really care what you think, neither do I; or most people, for that matter.
Again, your comment was just a mere "trolling." It was without any substance or even worth debating.
Indeed if it wasnt for Britain Austria-Hungary would have been rubbed out by Napoleon, however Britains aim to defeat Napoloen and restore the balance of power in Europe saved her. Later she was protected from attack by the rise of Germany as a great nation. Dont get me wrong i have nothing against Austria/the Austro-Hungarian empire (depending on time period) however even at its peak it was not as powerful as Britain.
What do you mean protected from the rise of Germany?? The Balance of power didnot prevent the rise of Gemrany as an industrial and military juggernaut. Indeed, Britain had to get directly involved in two World War to defeat Germany. If anything it proved that the Balance of Power changed, and the traditional formula that Britain employed did not work.
You misunderstand me. For the first 50 years after the end of Napoleon it was protected by the balance of power established by Britain. THEN it was protected through the alliance with Germany.
Well believe it or not there was a change in the balance of power in the 1800s when the Hungarians rebelled. And believe it or not it was the Hungarians who were originally the pro-Germans not the Austrians who distrusted Prussia after they were defeated by their armies.
Yes but at the time it seemed to be a national thing and not to have international significance, France showed no serious sign of concern and so Britain pretty much ignored it completely.
I meant that it didnt seem serious enough for Britain to get really interested in. Britain was allied with Prussia (or it had been, im not sure at this point) and so as long as Prussia didnt try and absorb Austria (and thus substantially alter the balance of power) and so Britain wasnt that bothered.
That's probably true. I'd have to read more into it. I also remember that Bismark didnot want Germany to build a high seas fleet and establish overseas colonies for precisely the reason that he did not want to threaten the British
Also the German and British royal families were closely related. Kaiser Wilhelm was the nephew of Queen Victoria...
Yes i knew that. It was only with Kaiser Wilhelm II and his craving for an overseas empire that confrontation with Britain grew, that and the rapid increase in Germany's GDP in the last twenty years of the 19th century.
I think we're forgetting the differences in size here between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the British Empire. Napoleon beat both Prussia and Austria but did not beat Britain and after Napoleon Britain was the dominant power (by quite a way) for at least the next hundred years.
Well Britain was protected by the Channel. So it was a geographic factor that insulated them from aggressive powers in Europe. Whereas The Austro-Hungarian Empire may ave been beaten several times but never destroyed until World War I.
Ah yes a whole 24 miles of water that could stop the great Napoleon! In the same way Russia has winter and a huge, draining land mass. Tolstoy himself in War and Peace believed that Napoleon was lucky that he gave up on his plan to invade Britain. Because even if he had got men across it would have destroyed him. Many times France fought Austria-Hungary and AH would have the bigger army and it would lose. Many times Britain fought France and France had the bigger army and yet Britain would win.
okay....so what? True tht AH would lose. But the fact they kept coming back and coming back was something special. At the end of the day, who was known for setting up the conditions on the European Continent post-Napoleon?? It was Prince Metternich, who as I remember was Austrian.
The fact that they kept coming back was because Napoleon didnt have a big enough army to control all of Europe and so had to leave Austria and Prussia as sovereign nations. Austria wanted revenge and recieved money from Britain to do so, repeatedly. Prince Metternich was a good man however he was not given his platform by his Empire but by Britain and Russia
Well it was definitely a case of overstretch on Napoleon's part, that's for sure. Even still to keep losing but to continue to keep up the fight is admirable
Definately, i have no problem there. Many nations would have collapsed inwards or had a revolution etc after such a thing but Austria kept itself together, much better than Prussia at the time. And as for the German Empire, well that was a small but extremely powerful Empire.
Which is what I find interesting about Austria-Hungary. On many occasions they could of collapsed, but with a deal here, or a marriage there..they were still in it...
Metternich was not a good man at all! He was anti-nationalist, anti-liberal and wanted nothing more than Germany to remain seperate,. He also stuck his ore in Italy aswell if I can remember correctly.
Germany was a nation of culture, pride, art, and science. As you know, famous scientists such as Albert Einstein, and Max Plank came from there, to name a few.
When did that tradition begin? The British empire was established earlier, and broke up later and to a lesser extent. Unless you refer to the Holy Roman empire. But that was partly owned by e.g. Sweden at times, and thus I would not call it very great.
I see. but tell me one reason why you don´t like the EMPIRE. I mean our EMPIRE was the biggest in the history. We´ve reigned over million people on every continent. And I can´t understand why you hate the EMPIRE.
Well my friend, what bothers me was the politics and the economics of the Empire.
You were the largest in history. You had territory on every continent. It was glorious.....for you. Because it was the BRITISH Empire. But for the subjected peoples throughout the Empire, it was not glorious. It was the opposite. It meant the loss of independence, the loss of political power, and the loss of their industries.
texanianbull. It's not true. Not all people were equal.
Don't take this from an American. Take it from a guy who relatives came from the one of the countries in the old Empire. You're seeing it from one side and not from the others....
Becaus it caused 700,000,000 deaths and enslaved an entire race of people...? I like britain but empires are expensive and not really that good tbh...
Oh, those old laws! Pity we don´t have much of them surviving in Finland. The oldest ones we have left are from 18:th century, and even those are very few. I remember, though, that some years ago the police were going to take a drunken man into custody, but he told them that only a nobleman could arrest a nobleman. Unfortunately the police chief was a policeman, too.
and if you think that law is fubar check this out, i (an englishman) can legally shoot (with a bow and arrow) any welsh i find within the walls of chester after midnight. and yes i do have bows :D
Every English over a certain age (8-10 i think) must practise his archery every sunday for purpose of defence of the realm
Every Englishman has the right to his castle (so build a house in the style of a catle do it with no planning permision and they can not force you to tear it down)
i see many walking with bows around here as there are many archery clubs.
the prctise thing has to be done under the eye's of the clergy (lol thank you california cos i am now a reverand) and yes often we do go out on sunday to practise on common land, mainly for the fact that the cops can't stop us but also to keep the tradition alive.
i havn't shot a welshman not sure i ever will cos the murder law over rights it but it is still on the statute books and as such is still law
An englishman a few years ago challenged a ruling by the DVLA, he challenged the ruling by dispute and under an old law he legally challenged them to a duel to the death.
of course they had to refuse and as such he won his case. this law was rapidly changed to prevent it happening again.
bondsan, you said earlier that Australia and Canada were considered just as much the Queen's as Britian. So let me ask you...What if either Australia or Canada or both vote to become Republics in a popular referendum? How would you feel about that?
Would it bother you if Britain, sometime in the future decided to go Republic, or if Scotaland votes to secede via referendum and becomes a republic, itself??
Of course it would bother me. It concerns me in a very direct manner. Aus, NZ and Can would be welcome under the crown, but as independant, democratic nations they have right to their own history. So does the UK of course, but as my homeland its my right to argue my point of veiw, and the same goes for all other Britons.
What argument would you make to keep the monarchy over establishing a Republic?? I really could see you guys being a damn good Presidential Republic. "President of Britain" has a nice ring to it, doesn't it??
Escargots sounds elegant and delicious but it's still cooked snails no matter what it is called.
The British Government is a power sharing in a way. The House of Commons hadles all the Legislature and technical details. The queen handles the official duties and approves all new legislation as head of state. An embodiment of all that we hold to be British. Whereas the HOC is more of a flavour of the month thing. But more importantly, the Queen limits the power of Parliament.
Now I know that sends alarm bells off in your head, but listen: The US has a constitution to prevent democracy being thrown down the pan. It's articles give guidelines about how the US is to be governed. Although the UK has a constitution, it is more of a hisorical record. The Queen, if you will, is a... Human Constitutions shall we say. Parliment is an elected assembly, but for ordinary legislation, the public has little offical say.
Well...atleast from over here, I never got the impression that the Queen was actively involved in her role as the "Human Constitution".
Whereas here in the States, we have the Supreme Court, whose role it is to examine the Constitutionality of certain laws. So yes, the written Constitution serve both as general guidelines and a rulebook for government. The First 10 Amendments of the Constitution aka the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed upon by government.
If need be (hopefully ther never will be a need) the Queen can refuse to endorse a particular peice of Legislation. In the same way that the US constiution forbids certain legislation.
Well theoretically the Queen can, I suppose. I remember hearing somewhere that she can also refuse to call an incoming PM to form a government too....
But again I never got the impression that the Queen played an active role in endorsing or denying legislation. I always seemed that for all practical purposes the PM got his way pretty much 99% of the time...
Whereas here the President is much more likely to use the power of the veto.
as you can probably tell i am one of those subjects who would gladly live or die at her request and i am proud to be so.
God save The Queen.
ps, the traitor who installed parliament got his just rewards, even though he was already dead and rotting he was exhumed, hung drawn and quartered and his head displayed on traitors gate.
Wait a minute, didn't the New Model Army kick Royalist ass up and down the British Isles??
I mean Oliver Cromwell rose from a humble squire to become a leader and challenge the establishment..I'd think that there would be a little bit of support for such a figure??
dude look youyr trying to tell me my history when you clearly don't know anything !
the new model army did not force "her" into any exile cos it was centuries before her time !!
the civil war was a close fought war with cromwell succeding in the end.
the king was deposed and executed the prince sent into exile, ut the war was not yet won as the royalists kept fighting until eventually the crown was restored and parliament was granted as a civil right.
he was a purtian who baned drink, festivities and anything that make life enjoyable he also killed great swaths of irelland and made trouble in scotland, though he did do a few good things, i dont realy thinke he would be held in to many peoples hearts. otherwise why so soon after his death was the monarchy restored.
EU not going to last long here mate they will be voted out and england will once again be an island.
we are bulldogs not brussel sprouts and we don't like being in europe cos of all these stupid "human rights" so it's time to leave and time to start getting back to the way we were.
on june the 4th we vote and mine is firmly placed with the BNP !
Well yeah...I mean isn't the EU one big, happy family?? I thought the Brits were more than happy to be in the a European arrangement that gave them access to Continental markets??
So what exactly are you trying to get to, if I may ask??
Being in the EU does have it's benefits, don't get me wrong.
But local jobs only appear in the Job Center for a couple of weeks, If no one applies, every one of them gets taken off and put on a points scheme. Once its on there immigrants from the EU mainly Poland get first choice on these skilled jobs and get training paid for by the government.
please define an accident of birth ? i'll have you know i was planned and wanted thank you very much.
YES i DO owe her my life it is hers to command and i will follow her orders even if it means my death and i will do with pride for i am English and she is my Queen.
in 1066 my family was granted land and title for services to the crown it was King Henry the 6th who gave us our family motto.
YES my Queen owns me i am hers to command and i give myself to her freely.
Well accident in birth is when someone is born into a royal family as opposed to a regular family and thus that gives them legitamacy over everyone else...
Regarding Smith. Doesn't tit upset you that a Rhodesian, son of Scottish immigrants, declared independence against your Queen's wishes?? And went further to turn Rhodesia into a Republic??
Okay..so yours is an old noble family. Now I 'm beginning to see where you're coming from...
that was the civil war you refer to the glorious revolution was when the dutch king william of orange saved us from having a french king cos that will propper never happen you got more chance of having a catholic on the throne.
The Queen is answerable to parliament yes but parliament can not open without her say so !!! who are you going to use to force it ? her magesties armed forces perhaps or maybe the royal navy ?
She strikes me as a more titular monarch. Ofcourse she opens Parliament. But it's not like she can refuse the will of the people if she decides NOT convene parliament because she doesn't like the incoming PM or for any other reason....
you just don't get it do you ? parliament is there to argue out the withertoo's and whyfores the Queen rubber stamps it to make it legal without her stamp NOTHING HAPPENS !
it's a constitutional monarchy and we have already had the war to decide how it is !
and the decision was ENGLAND BELONGS TO THE CROWN !!!
parliament grants the wishes of the people cos the Queen says so ok ?
The Queen HAS to rubber stamp acts of Parliament. She cannot defy the edicts of a democratically elected body. This was the result of your war.
England doesnot belong to the crown silly....It belongs to itself. Parliament being the sole and legal legislative and executive body, whie the Queen serving as a living symbol but with no poltiical power.
to a degree bondsan is correct she is the sole owner of the nation its seas its land its rivers its taxes its armed forces its church its minister they are all hers she holds them for the people though obivoulsy the power of the monarch has lessenced since the times of abosoloutimsn but it is far from just symbolic.
she could do and is in her right to do so, she is a constitutional monarchy so the majority of her power is bound up in the constitituin but weather the body is democraticly elected or not, if it defys the will of the people our it looses the support of the people like now she is well within her power to disolve it and call elections. she is not there for parliment but for the people.
no dude you just don't get it do you she's not the head of state for England like your president she is the owner of England it's her's
this is not a democracy, you don't get to vote on it you are told ! ok and your being told now England belongs to Her Britannic Magesty Queen Elizabeth the second and the people who live there are her subjects and her magesty has the right to deal with her subjects as she wills.
she is kind and she is gentle and for that we love her more.
and if there was no democracy how come you have political parties for the purpose of getting elected?? How come it is the PM that makes the day-to day decisions and not the Monarch regarding real governmental issues??
You are what's called a Parliamentary Monarchy...LOL!!!
paliament opens cos she says it can laws are passed cos she says they can without her approval nothing and i mean NOTHING will happen. we have these freedoms that we enjoy because she says we can have them.
as i say you have lost this. she does not OWN any body ? she owns me she owns my children and when she commands we OBEY !!
bondsan, I thoght rights are God given and cannot justifably be infirnged on by any Earthly authority....Atleast those are the lessons of the Enlightenment...
Then that pretty much ignores what you Brits like to romantically identify as the Glorious Revolution. The Hallmarks of which wasd a Monarchy that was ultimately answerable to Parliament. Howz that??? LOLOL!!
sigh who opens parliament ? the Queen, if a crime is commited who do you call ? her magesties constabulary. where do you try the offender ? in her magesties courts, where do they go once sentanced ? to her magesties prisons. why does the Queen not need licence plates to drive on her magesties roads ? dude you've lost this argument before you even started. if her magesty calls then we answer there is no refusing or you go to prison or can be shot ! she is gentle she is kind. but she is The Queen.
sorry but Britain hasnt lost anything except america because the countries we own are now commonwealths so that means when britain goes to war the y got to aswell so when you think about it Britain has still got most of the world so dont mess with us
thats totaly wrong only one nation is a commonwealth. the majoirty of other collonies are in the commonwealth of nations and are totaly independat and dont have to answer anything.
Actually no...you don't own any other country save the British isles and some other islands spread throughout the world. Everyone else gets to make up their own domestic and foreign policy...
how, for Pete's sake, does she "own" those countries??? The Queen may be the Head of State for all those countries, but she sure as hell is not the "owner" of those countries...
yes she does OWN those countries, they are her's and any thing they do is because of her good grace.
I don't mean to dis any canadians or ausies because both are noble and honorable. but they are just as much a part of Her Magesties realm as wales or scotland.
just try and hurt them and see who comes calling at your door.........THE BRITISH ARMY !
She doesn't even own her own country. In fact all of the jewels and property she supposedly owns are footed by the British tax payer. No offense to her because as a person she handled herself in a dignified and respectful manner and sacrificed her personal life for her people's.
But she in noway owns anybody let alone any country.
wrong wrong just soooo wrong on too many levels to even dream of being right.
the church of england is the biggest land owner in england and whome may i ask is the head of the church ?
so the tax payers paid for all her stuff ! ok but remember she owns them ! yes you read it right she owns them the tax payers (her subjects) are hers to command if she commands us to lead a good life we do, if she commands us to die ! ours is not to make reply ours is but to do and die !!!
bondsan, I for one am surprised to find people in the 21st century with a poltical ideology straight out of the 15 th century...LOL!!!
She doesnot own her subjects, and would be the first to say so. She serves as a symbol for your nation, and in that job she served most honorably. Remember, your country has Constiutional Monarchy?? Yeah??
there are, have been and always will be english who are fiercly royalist and that is why her will shall always be done in england.
BECAUSE IT'S HER'S.........SHE OWNS IT !
and every subject is her's to command, comply and receive her blessing refuse and face her justice, and how can she enforce this ? because we the people, the loyal subjects shall enforce her will within her land for we give ourselves life and soul to serve our Queen god bless her and long may she reign.
Enforcement, punishment, commands??? Come now. Do you reall think that she expects you all to behave in such a authoritarian fashion?? I always thought she was a gentle person.
legendary recon: 1: how could we lose scotland if britain is the unification of england,SCOTLAND,wales and nth ireland? 2: technically we did not lose those colonies (barring america) correct me if im wrong but we gave those countries back in the 40s and 50s. so youll forgive me for saying so but do get your facts right before you slander a nation and its people!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
if the british are better , why did they lose all the land they claimed, they lost America, Scotland, Ireland, India, and others, so yea whos awsome now ,not u bloody british, everyone else who kicked yalls ass.
we lost the colonies because we were fighting war in europe to save our motherland and the fact that, the disloyal colonial had help from france spain the dutch ect. but that lead us to free up troops to rule the rest of the world for 150 years then two world wars lead to our decline, but you need to check your facts lost, ireland scotland? and kiked our ass lol you do realy need to read a book, and yeah we were so lame if you think that stop using the things we discovered, invented, preserved.
If current trends aren't reversed, and the west doesn't stomp islam into the dust from whence it came, this video will be called 'The Might of Britannistan'! Please, current traitorous leaders of Britain. For GOD sake get your treasonous heads out of islams stinking ass and seize control of your country. You are spitting in the face of every soldier that died for that once GREAT nation.
first of all if you are going to speak about britain, learn bloody English! Second, Islam the religion promotes peace, it is the crazy fundamentalist Muslims that have committed these crimes of which you speak, they are an extremely small portion of a largely peaceful religion. Third, Britain is still a great nation! They are so partly because they do not lump all Muslims in with the few crazy ones, if they were paranoid and delusional like americans they would be in trouble.
Sorry cuntbreath, but as long as there is one fucking moslem in Britain, Britain is not a great nation. I can speak English, and type it quite well thank you very much. And islam in its entirety is a fucked out, psychotic cult of death. If you 'peaceful' fuckers were 'peaceful' and cared about islam, you would hunt down and deal with terrorism on your own. Now, start tearing down those 1600+ ugly asshole mosques that you've got soiling Britain, then pack up and get the hell out.
BRITISH EMPIRE is THE LARGEST empire in Human history....that is highly impressive...especially for a country so small.
SabaeanYared 11 months ago
@SabaeanYared Actually the Roman Empire was the biggest, but never the less the point remains. We owned a lot of the world.
PROkiller16 7 months ago
@PROkiller16 No the British Empire was. FACT. Universally agreed.
dannyallvey79 6 months ago in playlist England
@dannyallvey79 The Roman Empire was bigger, however the British Empire was more powerful.
PROkiller16 6 months ago
@PROkiller16 The British Empire was the largest by land mass, population and the richest. The Roman Empire was far smaller. However the Roman Empire had a higher percentage of the total world population.
dannyallvey79 6 months ago
circus music
ScottishPatriot23 1 year ago
give me the puke bucket seriously fuck sake its been a long time since the empire all you are now are a bunch of fools americas dogs............ sit ubu sit good dog
faithfulfenian 1 year ago
@faithfulfenian as usual an unhappy irishman......you irish catholics are boring
TheTwollocks 5 months ago
As a soldier, as an officer in the Royal Army, and as a knight commander of bath, Rule Britannia and God Save the Queen!!!
MathiusK408 1 year ago
@MathiusK408; stop walting monkey boy. KC? ffs.
constablenapweed 1 year ago
@constablenapweed you know this is actually getting quite pathetic, I advise you find something else to preoccupy your time to indulge your vulgar and barbaric attitude.
MathiusK408 1 year ago
@MathiusK408 What I find offensive is your persistent walting. Stop pretending to be something you are not. However, I do find your use of cod victorian english amusing.
constablenapweed 1 year ago
be prepared for WW3 Brittania!
billnwot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All I see in this video is the rise and fall of ONE!! of the most evil empires ever
5hitter 1 year ago
Not anymore socialist ruined it
Revkor 1 year ago
HEJ !!! 1.11 I was born there!!! :D
knight7fox2 2 years ago
America and Great Britain, the two greatest allies of all time. I hope we Americans will always stand behind you, Great Britain!
redunn 2 years ago 14
As we stand in front of you.
NSCLord 2 years ago
We are both epic nations
NSCLord 2 years ago
5 popes gone and the queen lives on.
Rule Britannia!
juggalossuckcock 2 years ago 12
God bless the United Kingdom...
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!
324wilson 2 years ago 26
@324wilson god never bless greedy bastards. u know the past how selfish u are. ur queen will be fucked up soon
9888972597 7 months ago
@9888972597 Oh, your intellectual superiority astounds me! Learn how to construct a sentence first, then talk to me.
324wilson 7 months ago
@324wilson lol stop playing the grammer card here. leave it in school. u got it what i said thats the thing.
9888972597 7 months ago
@9888972597 All right. So, let's then talk about what you "said." You called me "selfish." I don't know how did that came about? And as for your comment on the Queen. Well, to be candid, she doesn't really care what you think, neither do I; or most people, for that matter.
Again, your comment was just a mere "trolling." It was without any substance or even worth debating.
324wilson 7 months ago
I am republican but our Queen swore sacred oaths at her coronation before God and always kept them don't disrespect her - she is a great lady
iantonowful 2 years ago 20
Indeed if it wasnt for Britain Austria-Hungary would have been rubbed out by Napoleon, however Britains aim to defeat Napoloen and restore the balance of power in Europe saved her. Later she was protected from attack by the rise of Germany as a great nation. Dont get me wrong i have nothing against Austria/the Austro-Hungarian empire (depending on time period) however even at its peak it was not as powerful as Britain.
thebigJM92 2 years ago
What do you mean protected from the rise of Germany?? The Balance of power didnot prevent the rise of Gemrany as an industrial and military juggernaut. Indeed, Britain had to get directly involved in two World War to defeat Germany. If anything it proved that the Balance of Power changed, and the traditional formula that Britain employed did not work.
suryavajra 2 years ago
You misunderstand me. For the first 50 years after the end of Napoleon it was protected by the balance of power established by Britain. THEN it was protected through the alliance with Germany.
thebigJM92 2 years ago
Well believe it or not there was a change in the balance of power in the 1800s when the Hungarians rebelled. And believe it or not it was the Hungarians who were originally the pro-Germans not the Austrians who distrusted Prussia after they were defeated by their armies.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Yes but at the time it seemed to be a national thing and not to have international significance, France showed no serious sign of concern and so Britain pretty much ignored it completely.
thebigJM92 2 years ago
You're talking about the Austrian-Prussian War??
suryavajra 2 years ago
I meant that it didnt seem serious enough for Britain to get really interested in. Britain was allied with Prussia (or it had been, im not sure at this point) and so as long as Prussia didnt try and absorb Austria (and thus substantially alter the balance of power) and so Britain wasnt that bothered.
thebigJM92 2 years ago
That's probably true. I'd have to read more into it. I also remember that Bismark didnot want Germany to build a high seas fleet and establish overseas colonies for precisely the reason that he did not want to threaten the British
Also the German and British royal families were closely related. Kaiser Wilhelm was the nephew of Queen Victoria...
suryavajra 2 years ago
Yes i knew that. It was only with Kaiser Wilhelm II and his craving for an overseas empire that confrontation with Britain grew, that and the rapid increase in Germany's GDP in the last twenty years of the 19th century.
thebigJM92 2 years ago
I think we're forgetting the differences in size here between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the British Empire. Napoleon beat both Prussia and Austria but did not beat Britain and after Napoleon Britain was the dominant power (by quite a way) for at least the next hundred years.
thebigJM92 2 years ago
Well Britain was protected by the Channel. So it was a geographic factor that insulated them from aggressive powers in Europe. Whereas The Austro-Hungarian Empire may ave been beaten several times but never destroyed until World War I.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Ah yes a whole 24 miles of water that could stop the great Napoleon! In the same way Russia has winter and a huge, draining land mass. Tolstoy himself in War and Peace believed that Napoleon was lucky that he gave up on his plan to invade Britain. Because even if he had got men across it would have destroyed him. Many times France fought Austria-Hungary and AH would have the bigger army and it would lose. Many times Britain fought France and France had the bigger army and yet Britain would win.
thebigJM92 2 years ago
okay....so what? True tht AH would lose. But the fact they kept coming back and coming back was something special. At the end of the day, who was known for setting up the conditions on the European Continent post-Napoleon?? It was Prince Metternich, who as I remember was Austrian.
suryavajra 2 years ago
The fact that they kept coming back was because Napoleon didnt have a big enough army to control all of Europe and so had to leave Austria and Prussia as sovereign nations. Austria wanted revenge and recieved money from Britain to do so, repeatedly. Prince Metternich was a good man however he was not given his platform by his Empire but by Britain and Russia
thebigJM92 2 years ago
Well it was definitely a case of overstretch on Napoleon's part, that's for sure. Even still to keep losing but to continue to keep up the fight is admirable
suryavajra 2 years ago
Definately, i have no problem there. Many nations would have collapsed inwards or had a revolution etc after such a thing but Austria kept itself together, much better than Prussia at the time. And as for the German Empire, well that was a small but extremely powerful Empire.
thebigJM92 2 years ago
True that about Prussia.
Which is what I find interesting about Austria-Hungary. On many occasions they could of collapsed, but with a deal here, or a marriage there..they were still in it...
suryavajra 2 years ago
Metternich was not a good man at all! He was anti-nationalist, anti-liberal and wanted nothing more than Germany to remain seperate,. He also stuck his ore in Italy aswell if I can remember correctly.
nrjelley 2 years ago 3
yes and they were actually germans, just another 'tribe' like we have today bavaria, the people from berlin or from the rhineland.
KasveLipiel09 2 years ago
I see!! Well I always had respect for Maria Teresa and Frederich the Great. I realize that they fought against each other....LOL!
suryavajra 2 years ago
why can we hear the beginning of the radetzky march at 1:10?
and, by the way, the british empire was mighty, yes, but it can't beat the long tradition and history of german and prussian empires
KasveLipiel09 2 years ago
oh i think the british empire was much better than the german empires. nothing good came from the german empires
rulebritannia1 2 years ago 5
Well there was one German dynasty that stood for a long, long time. The Hapsburgs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
suryavajra 2 years ago
@rulebritannia1 Radetzky war ein Österreicher. Kein Deutcher.
Cruciferus 1 year ago
@rulebritannia1
Germany was a nation of culture, pride, art, and science. As you know, famous scientists such as Albert Einstein, and Max Plank came from there, to name a few.
biggrigga 1 year ago
do you count the Hapsburg Dynasty as one of the examples of a German Empire??
suryavajra 2 years ago
the habsburg dynasty was a mixture of spanish and austrian families but they had a great influence on the german and prussian empires
KasveLipiel09 2 years ago
I see....but the Austrians were German speaking as well weren't they?
suryavajra 2 years ago
@KasveLipiel09
When did that tradition begin? The British empire was established earlier, and broke up later and to a lesser extent. Unless you refer to the Holy Roman empire. But that was partly owned by e.g. Sweden at times, and thus I would not call it very great.
vikke064 1 year ago
@KasveLipiel09 the british empire is extremely renown and was the best at its time the prussians were runners up as were the french
OW41N 1 year ago
@KasveLipiel09 Holocaust. shut the fuck up
liampw20 10 months ago
The British Empire was the Greatest Empire ever. Some 5 times that of the celebrated Roman Empire.
Magnificent.
TPerei1 2 years ago 3
BRITISH IS BETTER!
The greatest EMPIRE ever rule the World
LONG LIVE HER MAJESTY
texanianbull 2 years ago
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN.......of Jordan.
suryavajra 2 years ago
how are you my friend? I can see you like the Empire. You watch the same like me
texanianbull 2 years ago
Doing good! How are you doing?
suryavajra 2 years ago
just perfect
texanianbull 2 years ago
But actually, I don't like the old Empire...but I am here for the debates and the sparking conversations. :P
suryavajra 2 years ago
But why you don´t like the BRITISH EMPIRE?
texanianbull 2 years ago
it's a long, long story....LOL! But no I donot like the Empire. I do like Britain and the British people, your culture , literature, and the arts.
suryavajra 2 years ago
I see. but tell me one reason why you don´t like the EMPIRE. I mean our EMPIRE was the biggest in the history. We´ve reigned over million people on every continent. And I can´t understand why you hate the EMPIRE.
texanianbull 2 years ago
Well my friend, what bothers me was the politics and the economics of the Empire.
You were the largest in history. You had territory on every continent. It was glorious.....for you. Because it was the BRITISH Empire. But for the subjected peoples throughout the Empire, it was not glorious. It was the opposite. It meant the loss of independence, the loss of political power, and the loss of their industries.
suryavajra 2 years ago
No that´s not true. The EMPIRE brought all this people the BRITISH civilization, a better life and a better economy. And yes I agree it was glorious.
LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE may it never die!
texanianbull 2 years ago 2
texanianbull. It's not true. Not all people were equal.
Don't take this from an American. Take it from a guy who relatives came from the one of the countries in the old Empire. You're seeing it from one side and not from the others....
suryavajra 2 years ago
probably you right.
texanianbull 2 years ago
Becaus it caused 700,000,000 deaths and enslaved an entire race of people...? I like britain but empires are expensive and not really that good tbh...
krazykeys88 2 years ago
Oh, those old laws! Pity we don´t have much of them surviving in Finland. The oldest ones we have left are from 18:th century, and even those are very few. I remember, though, that some years ago the police were going to take a drunken man into custody, but he told them that only a nobleman could arrest a nobleman. Unfortunately the police chief was a policeman, too.
Muinaismuisto 2 years ago
British is better by far!
davidhunteresq 2 years ago 2
Not if you fancy a decent shower.
animatetime 2 years ago
oh yeah fyi prince charles still has the right of prima noctu in the county of cornwall
meaning if he so chose to he could legally fuk a wife on her fist night of marriage.
though i really do doubt he would ever invoke the law.
bondsan 2 years ago
I dont; get it. Isn't that already a right of marriage?? LOL!
suryavajra 2 years ago
watch braveheart for an insight into prima noctu
and if you think that law is fubar check this out, i (an englishman) can legally shoot (with a bow and arrow) any welsh i find within the walls of chester after midnight. and yes i do have bows :D
and yes i do live near chester :D:D:D
god i love being English.
bondsan 2 years ago
Wow...what a weird law...hahahaha! Amazing that you still have those in the law books....
suryavajra 2 years ago
we have lots like that.
An Englishman has the right to carry a bow
Every English over a certain age (8-10 i think) must practise his archery every sunday for purpose of defence of the realm
Every Englishman has the right to his castle (so build a house in the style of a catle do it with no planning permision and they can not force you to tear it down)
the list goes on
bondsan 2 years ago
So how many people actually follow those laws???
suryavajra 2 years ago
i see many walking with bows around here as there are many archery clubs.
the prctise thing has to be done under the eye's of the clergy (lol thank you california cos i am now a reverand) and yes often we do go out on sunday to practise on common land, mainly for the fact that the cops can't stop us but also to keep the tradition alive.
i havn't shot a welshman not sure i ever will cos the murder law over rights it but it is still on the statute books and as such is still law
bondsan 2 years ago
Wow...that is interesting. So you are a reverend?? A real reverend or a non practicing, credentialed kind??
suryavajra 2 years ago
credential kind so that when the cops say "ahh you must practice within the eye's of the clergy! i can say yes i am a reverand lol
google Lions weird english laws for more info on some crazy statutes
bondsan 2 years ago
I see...LOLOL!!!
suryavajra 2 years ago
addendum*
An englishman a few years ago challenged a ruling by the DVLA, he challenged the ruling by dispute and under an old law he legally challenged them to a duel to the death.
of course they had to refuse and as such he won his case. this law was rapidly changed to prevent it happening again.
bondsan 2 years ago
bondsan, you said earlier that Australia and Canada were considered just as much the Queen's as Britian. So let me ask you...What if either Australia or Canada or both vote to become Republics in a popular referendum? How would you feel about that?
suryavajra 2 years ago
australia already has not sure about NZ or CAN but if thats what the people want then thats ok, they have done enough to write their own history.
bondsan 2 years ago
Would it bother you if Britain, sometime in the future decided to go Republic, or if Scotaland votes to secede via referendum and becomes a republic, itself??
suryavajra 2 years ago
britain will not go as a republic we have already had the war to decide, as i have told you already.
plus it was a scotish king on the throne of england that united us.
bondsan 2 years ago
Yeah...but what if the issue was revisited in the future?
suryavajra 2 years ago
yawn
bondsan 2 years ago
ready to turn in for the night?
suryavajra 2 years ago
Of course it would bother me. It concerns me in a very direct manner. Aus, NZ and Can would be welcome under the crown, but as independant, democratic nations they have right to their own history. So does the UK of course, but as my homeland its my right to argue my point of veiw, and the same goes for all other Britons.
Hamdaman101 2 years ago
What argument would you make to keep the monarchy over establishing a Republic?? I really could see you guys being a damn good Presidential Republic. "President of Britain" has a nice ring to it, doesn't it??
suryavajra 2 years ago
Escargots sounds elegant and delicious but it's still cooked snails no matter what it is called.
The British Government is a power sharing in a way. The House of Commons hadles all the Legislature and technical details. The queen handles the official duties and approves all new legislation as head of state. An embodiment of all that we hold to be British. Whereas the HOC is more of a flavour of the month thing. But more importantly, the Queen limits the power of Parliament.
Hamdaman101 2 years ago
Now I know that sends alarm bells off in your head, but listen: The US has a constitution to prevent democracy being thrown down the pan. It's articles give guidelines about how the US is to be governed. Although the UK has a constitution, it is more of a hisorical record. The Queen, if you will, is a... Human Constitutions shall we say. Parliment is an elected assembly, but for ordinary legislation, the public has little offical say.
Hamdaman101 2 years ago
Well...atleast from over here, I never got the impression that the Queen was actively involved in her role as the "Human Constitution".
Whereas here in the States, we have the Supreme Court, whose role it is to examine the Constitutionality of certain laws. So yes, the written Constitution serve both as general guidelines and a rulebook for government. The First 10 Amendments of the Constitution aka the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed upon by government.
suryavajra 2 years ago
If need be (hopefully ther never will be a need) the Queen can refuse to endorse a particular peice of Legislation. In the same way that the US constiution forbids certain legislation.
Hamdaman101 2 years ago
Well theoretically the Queen can, I suppose. I remember hearing somewhere that she can also refuse to call an incoming PM to form a government too....
But again I never got the impression that the Queen played an active role in endorsing or denying legislation. I always seemed that for all practical purposes the PM got his way pretty much 99% of the time...
Whereas here the President is much more likely to use the power of the veto.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Antagonistically, the House of Commons limits the powers of the Queen.
Hamdaman101 2 years ago
yeah you have !
as you can probably tell i am one of those subjects who would gladly live or die at her request and i am proud to be so.
God save The Queen.
ps, the traitor who installed parliament got his just rewards, even though he was already dead and rotting he was exhumed, hung drawn and quartered and his head displayed on traitors gate.
bondsan 2 years ago
Just so we're on the same page, can you give the name of this "traitor" for record??
Sorry if I did poke your nerve. You sound really aggrevated. Why not calm down??
suryavajra 2 years ago
the traitor was called Oliver Cromwell.
and don't come singing that he created parliament ect cos you forget i'm a royalist so yeah he was a traitor.
bondsan 2 years ago
Wait a minute, didn't the New Model Army kick Royalist ass up and down the British Isles??
I mean Oliver Cromwell rose from a humble squire to become a leader and challenge the establishment..I'd think that there would be a little bit of support for such a figure??
suryavajra 2 years ago
dude look your a yank trying to tell an englishman how it is in his own country.
nma did not kick the royalist ass is was a close fought battle all round.
the prince of wales is just a title to keep the muppet welsh quiet and yes the prince of wales owns cornwall. its his !
bondsan 2 years ago
yeah they did...They forced the heir into exile didn't they??? And the Royals could only take their revenge once Cromwell was dead...LOL!!
Then what about the second son to the throne?? What's his?? LOL!
suryavajra 2 years ago
dude look youyr trying to tell me my history when you clearly don't know anything !
the new model army did not force "her" into any exile cos it was centuries before her time !!
the civil war was a close fought war with cromwell succeding in the end.
the king was deposed and executed the prince sent into exile, ut the war was not yet won as the royalists kept fighting until eventually the crown was restored and parliament was granted as a civil right.
England belongs to the crown.
bondsan 2 years ago
oooh sorry. Didn;'t they force him into exile?? Made a simle grammar mistake there...LOLOL!!
Well wat a minute, Cromwell had to die first. Because there was no way in hell the royalists would beat Cromwell while he was alive, that's for sure.
suryavajra 2 years ago
I get this a lot. "You're just a Yank, you don't know anything".
Maybe I know a little more about your history than you might think?? LOLOL!!!!
suryavajra 2 years ago
i think oliver cromwell was a good figure and wasn't it charles who declared war on parliment
Steven0935 2 years ago 4
he was a purtian who baned drink, festivities and anything that make life enjoyable he also killed great swaths of irelland and made trouble in scotland, though he did do a few good things, i dont realy thinke he would be held in to many peoples hearts. otherwise why so soon after his death was the monarchy restored.
rulebritannia1 2 years ago
exactly !
monarchy restored is the key phrase !
bondsan 2 years ago
Restored, after the guy who handed their asses to them on so many occassions finally died...Wow!! LOLOL!`
suryavajra 2 years ago
you just know nothing about the civil war do you ?
i had family who fought in it.
i live in the country made by it.
sigh i'm sick of telling this rem so instead i'm off to tease some hartlepool lads about hanging monkeys who are really french spies
bondsan 2 years ago
so on what side did your family fight on?
By the way, aren't you guys supposed to be cosy with the French now, owing to the EU?
suryavajra 2 years ago
we were royalists
cosy with the french are you kidding ?
EU not going to last long here mate they will be voted out and england will once again be an island.
we are bulldogs not brussel sprouts and we don't like being in europe cos of all these stupid "human rights" so it's time to leave and time to start getting back to the way we were.
on june the 4th we vote and mine is firmly placed with the BNP !
bondsan 2 years ago
Well yeah...I mean isn't the EU one big, happy family?? I thought the Brits were more than happy to be in the a European arrangement that gave them access to Continental markets??
So what exactly are you trying to get to, if I may ask??
suryavajra 2 years ago
Well said, I am no doubt voting for BNP each and every time I can.
@suryavajra
Being in the EU does have it's benefits, don't get me wrong.
But local jobs only appear in the Job Center for a couple of weeks, If no one applies, every one of them gets taken off and put on a points scheme. Once its on there immigrants from the EU mainly Poland get first choice on these skilled jobs and get training paid for by the government.
It takes the piss!
KingGsterUK 2 years ago
and I was right before. The word is "heir". Because the wouldbe successor was forced out of the country.
suryavajra 2 years ago
yup your right it was my reading error
yes the prince was forced into exile but the crown was restored.
your not going to convince me otherwise england belongs to the crown and there are many of us still willing to die to ensure it stays that way.
and that is to die at her command !
bondsan 2 years ago
Whati s your opinion of Ian Smith, who decalred independence from your country???
But look, I find it hard to believe that you owe someone your very life because of an accident of birth....I mean, c'mon, man...
suryavajra 2 years ago
Ian smith ? no opinion at all
please define an accident of birth ? i'll have you know i was planned and wanted thank you very much.
YES i DO owe her my life it is hers to command and i will follow her orders even if it means my death and i will do with pride for i am English and she is my Queen.
in 1066 my family was granted land and title for services to the crown it was King Henry the 6th who gave us our family motto.
YES my Queen owns me i am hers to command and i give myself to her freely.
bondsan 2 years ago
Well accident in birth is when someone is born into a royal family as opposed to a regular family and thus that gives them legitamacy over everyone else...
Regarding Smith. Doesn't tit upset you that a Rhodesian, son of Scottish immigrants, declared independence against your Queen's wishes?? And went further to turn Rhodesia into a Republic??
Okay..so yours is an old noble family. Now I 'm beginning to see where you're coming from...
suryavajra 2 years ago
By the way, what is your opinion of PM Ian Smith of Rhodesia??? Do you think he was a traitor for decalring UDI??
suryavajra 2 years ago
dude read the writing
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT HER SAY SO
why ? cos England belongs to her she owns it !
here endeth the lesson !
bondsan 2 years ago
bondsan, what's the matter??? Why are you losing your temper?? Have I struck a nerve?? LOLOL!
suryavajra 2 years ago
look retard stop being a fuckin muppet !
that was the civil war you refer to the glorious revolution was when the dutch king william of orange saved us from having a french king cos that will propper never happen you got more chance of having a catholic on the throne.
The Queen is answerable to parliament yes but parliament can not open without her say so !!! who are you going to use to force it ? her magesties armed forces perhaps or maybe the royal navy ?
bondsan 2 years ago
She strikes me as a more titular monarch. Ofcourse she opens Parliament. But it's not like she can refuse the will of the people if she decides NOT convene parliament because she doesn't like the incoming PM or for any other reason....
suryavajra 2 years ago
you just don't get it do you ? parliament is there to argue out the withertoo's and whyfores the Queen rubber stamps it to make it legal without her stamp NOTHING HAPPENS !
it's a constitutional monarchy and we have already had the war to decide how it is !
and the decision was ENGLAND BELONGS TO THE CROWN !!!
parliament grants the wishes of the people cos the Queen says so ok ?
bondsan 2 years ago
I don't think you get it, bondsan...
The Queen HAS to rubber stamp acts of Parliament. She cannot defy the edicts of a democratically elected body. This was the result of your war.
England doesnot belong to the crown silly....It belongs to itself. Parliament being the sole and legal legislative and executive body, whie the Queen serving as a living symbol but with no poltiical power.
suryavajra 2 years ago
dude let me put it this way, which one of us is english ?
ok now you understand yes ???
if the Queen says no to a law where will you get it tried ? who will arrest the criminal ?
every square inch of this green and pleasant land belongs to The Queen, apart from cornwall cos that belongs to the prince of wales.
there is no vote there is no option england belongs to the crown it always has and always will.
bondsan 2 years ago
By your own reasoning, doesn't Wales belong to the Prince of Wales?? LOL! and the second born son is the Duke of Cornwall??
suryavajra 2 years ago
to a degree bondsan is correct she is the sole owner of the nation its seas its land its rivers its taxes its armed forces its church its minister they are all hers she holds them for the people though obivoulsy the power of the monarch has lessenced since the times of abosoloutimsn but it is far from just symbolic.
rulebritannia1 2 years ago
she could do and is in her right to do so, she is a constitutional monarchy so the majority of her power is bound up in the constitituin but weather the body is democraticly elected or not, if it defys the will of the people our it looses the support of the people like now she is well within her power to disolve it and call elections. she is not there for parliment but for the people.
rulebritannia1 2 years ago
no dude you just don't get it do you she's not the head of state for England like your president she is the owner of England it's her's
this is not a democracy, you don't get to vote on it you are told ! ok and your being told now England belongs to Her Britannic Magesty Queen Elizabeth the second and the people who live there are her subjects and her magesty has the right to deal with her subjects as she wills.
she is kind and she is gentle and for that we love her more.
dude deal with it !
bondsan 2 years ago
and if there was no democracy how come you have political parties for the purpose of getting elected?? How come it is the PM that makes the day-to day decisions and not the Monarch regarding real governmental issues??
You are what's called a Parliamentary Monarchy...LOL!!!
suryavajra 2 years ago
and this is her land.
paliament opens cos she says it can laws are passed cos she says they can without her approval nothing and i mean NOTHING will happen. we have these freedoms that we enjoy because she says we can have them.
as i say you have lost this. she does not OWN any body ? she owns me she owns my children and when she commands we OBEY !!
bondsan 2 years ago
bondsan, I thoght rights are God given and cannot justifably be infirnged on by any Earthly authority....Atleast those are the lessons of the Enlightenment...
suryavajra 2 years ago
god given my arse
i can prove the Queen is real can you prove god is ?
bondsan 2 years ago
Then that pretty much ignores what you Brits like to romantically identify as the Glorious Revolution. The Hallmarks of which wasd a Monarchy that was ultimately answerable to Parliament. Howz that??? LOLOL!!
suryavajra 2 years ago
sigh who opens parliament ? the Queen, if a crime is commited who do you call ? her magesties constabulary. where do you try the offender ? in her magesties courts, where do they go once sentanced ? to her magesties prisons. why does the Queen not need licence plates to drive on her magesties roads ? dude you've lost this argument before you even started. if her magesty calls then we answer there is no refusing or you go to prison or can be shot ! she is gentle she is kind. but she is The Queen.
bondsan 2 years ago
Well she is the head of state of your country. Just like the President is the head of state of ours...
suryavajra 2 years ago
yes boi
RULE BRITANNIA
garudateam321 2 years ago
sorry but Britain hasnt lost anything except america because the countries we own are now commonwealths so that means when britain goes to war the y got to aswell so when you think about it Britain has still got most of the world so dont mess with us
RULE BRITANNIA
YouLost12365 2 years ago
thats totaly wrong only one nation is a commonwealth. the majoirty of other collonies are in the commonwealth of nations and are totaly independat and dont have to answer anything.
rulebritannia1 2 years ago
Actually no...you don't own any other country save the British isles and some other islands spread throughout the world. Everyone else gets to make up their own domestic and foreign policy...
suryavajra 2 years ago
wrong wrong wrong
if you wish to become canadian to whome do you swear loyalty to ?? the Queen of England cos she owns it.
who is the head of Australia ? you got it the Queen cos she owns it,
need i go on ?
bondsan 2 years ago
how, for Pete's sake, does she "own" those countries??? The Queen may be the Head of State for all those countries, but she sure as hell is not the "owner" of those countries...
suryavajra 2 years ago
yes she does OWN those countries, they are her's and any thing they do is because of her good grace.
I don't mean to dis any canadians or ausies because both are noble and honorable. but they are just as much a part of Her Magesties realm as wales or scotland.
just try and hurt them and see who comes calling at your door.........THE BRITISH ARMY !
bondsan 2 years ago
Like Hell she does...
She doesn't even own her own country. In fact all of the jewels and property she supposedly owns are footed by the British tax payer. No offense to her because as a person she handled herself in a dignified and respectful manner and sacrificed her personal life for her people's.
But she in noway owns anybody let alone any country.
suryavajra 2 years ago
I like her as a person. but man, I can't stand monarchy as an institution....
suryavajra 2 years ago
wrong wrong just soooo wrong on too many levels to even dream of being right.
the church of england is the biggest land owner in england and whome may i ask is the head of the church ?
so the tax payers paid for all her stuff ! ok but remember she owns them ! yes you read it right she owns them the tax payers (her subjects) are hers to command if she commands us to lead a good life we do, if she commands us to die ! ours is not to make reply ours is but to do and die !!!
bondsan 2 years ago
bondsan, I for one am surprised to find people in the 21st century with a poltical ideology straight out of the 15 th century...LOL!!!
She doesnot own her subjects, and would be the first to say so. She serves as a symbol for your nation, and in that job she served most honorably. Remember, your country has Constiutional Monarchy?? Yeah??
suryavajra 2 years ago
there are, have been and always will be english who are fiercly royalist and that is why her will shall always be done in england.
BECAUSE IT'S HER'S.........SHE OWNS IT !
and every subject is her's to command, comply and receive her blessing refuse and face her justice, and how can she enforce this ? because we the people, the loyal subjects shall enforce her will within her land for we give ourselves life and soul to serve our Queen god bless her and long may she reign.
bondsan 2 years ago
Enforcement, punishment, commands??? Come now. Do you reall think that she expects you all to behave in such a authoritarian fashion?? I always thought she was a gentle person.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Unfortunatly that isn't totally true but all former british colonies have a very friendly side to Britain, except Sierra Leone which is a total mess.
So the point is almost the same and pluss we got India which has the 3rd largest military in the world today. :P
rulebritannia945 2 years ago
So exactl what way do oyu have India???LOLOLOL! You're having a laugh.....
India is its own country with its own elected government and its own interest...So I wouldn't exactly say that ya'll own them...LOL!!!!
suryavajra 2 years ago
legendary recon: 1: how could we lose scotland if britain is the unification of england,SCOTLAND,wales and nth ireland? 2: technically we did not lose those colonies (barring america) correct me if im wrong but we gave those countries back in the 40s and 50s. so youll forgive me for saying so but do get your facts right before you slander a nation and its people!
fredofasgarnia 2 years ago
Hm, national pride. Good on ya, truly meant. then again, it's just an island, with people. Power to ya for havin' a bit of pride for your homeland.
TravisCG 2 years ago
Australia and New Zealand rocks!!! Thaks for keepig our flag in the corner of your own. You deserve our respect!!!!
KingGsterUK 2 years ago 6
and our undying loyalty
bondsan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
if the british are better , why did they lose all the land they claimed, they lost America, Scotland, Ireland, India, and others, so yea whos awsome now ,not u bloody british, everyone else who kicked yalls ass.
XXLegendaryReconXX 2 years ago
we lost the colonies because we were fighting war in europe to save our motherland and the fact that, the disloyal colonial had help from france spain the dutch ect. but that lead us to free up troops to rule the rest of the world for 150 years then two world wars lead to our decline, but you need to check your facts lost, ireland scotland? and kiked our ass lol you do realy need to read a book, and yeah we were so lame if you think that stop using the things we discovered, invented, preserved.
rulebritannia1 2 years ago
you realy need to get out a bit, perhaps read some books and clean that head of yours it seems to be filled with rubish
rulebritannia1 2 years ago
Such a tiny island, how did we achieve it? Even now it baffles me.
ukdixie 2 years ago 7
'British is better': than what?
dismith 2 years ago
than most other things, our produce our science our industry ect. the foundations of modern living and lines of thought
rulebritannia1 2 years ago
Indeed!
Boyyie1 2 years ago
If current trends aren't reversed, and the west doesn't stomp islam into the dust from whence it came, this video will be called 'The Might of Britannistan'! Please, current traitorous leaders of Britain. For GOD sake get your treasonous heads out of islams stinking ass and seize control of your country. You are spitting in the face of every soldier that died for that once GREAT nation.
moslemssuck 3 years ago
first of all if you are going to speak about britain, learn bloody English! Second, Islam the religion promotes peace, it is the crazy fundamentalist Muslims that have committed these crimes of which you speak, they are an extremely small portion of a largely peaceful religion. Third, Britain is still a great nation! They are so partly because they do not lump all Muslims in with the few crazy ones, if they were paranoid and delusional like americans they would be in trouble.
lardmonk 2 years ago
Sorry cuntbreath, but as long as there is one fucking moslem in Britain, Britain is not a great nation. I can speak English, and type it quite well thank you very much. And islam in its entirety is a fucked out, psychotic cult of death. If you 'peaceful' fuckers were 'peaceful' and cared about islam, you would hunt down and deal with terrorism on your own. Now, start tearing down those 1600+ ugly asshole mosques that you've got soiling Britain, then pack up and get the hell out.
moslemssuck 2 years ago
you really need to research before you believe everything you hear but think what you will that is one of the great things about britain
lardmonk 2 years ago
「The British Grenadiers」と「God Save The Queen」の間の曲は、なんですか？
What is the tune between "The British Grenadiers" and "God Save The Queen"?
英語、間違ってたらごめんなさい。
ImperialSorcerer 3 years ago
part of the radektzy march
rulebritannia1 3 years ago
ありがとうございます！
Thank you.
ImperialSorcerer 3 years ago