From: fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Date: 19 Dec 1992 22:55:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Dec18.131841.22490@newstand.syr.edu> crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes:
>In article <1gjr34INN1o8@network.ucsd.edu> fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister) writes:
>>>>
>>>Actually, considering when they were claimed by England, virtually
>>>all these countries, with the exception of the far Eastern/Pacific
>>>dominions, had an Elizabeth I, including Canada and everything in the
>>>Western hemisphere...except Jamaica and Belize, I believe.
>>>
>>>Chris the Smartass Imperial Historian
>>>`
>>Er, given that with the exception of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, all the
>>above became English (or British, for those acquired after 1707)
>>after Elizabeth Tudor had gone to meet her maker, that is more than
>>doubtful.
>>
>
>Are you SURE of that statement? Elizabeth gave Sir Walter Raleigh and
>Sir Humphrey Gilbert letters of marque to attack all Spanish ships
>of the main and the general theatre of war--on a grand scale--was the
>Caribbean. Several Caribbean islands were taken in the 1580's and 1590's
>to launch what did become mainland assaults on the Yucatan Penninsula! 
>Barbados, too, was in full swing as a sugar slave island by the 1590's
>because we know that the prisoners of the failed Revolt of the Earls 
>in Ireland spent the rest of their lives in what was sardonically referred
>to as "New Ireland"  because of the high number of indentured Irish
>sugar workers. 

While English raiders did seize islands in the Caribbean in the 16th
century, they did not hold them, nor was sovereignty asserted over
them. Only in the 17th century did England assert sovereignty over
territory in the New World.

Your statement about Barbados is rather odd, given that according to
West Indian historians, it was not settled until the 1620s. While
Barbados, Antigua, and St Christopher's were settled in the 1620s,
by the way, they did not come into 'full swing as ... sugar slave
island[s]' until the 1640s. [I don't have my standard text for West
Indian History, Parry, Sherlock & Maingot's _History_ with me, so I
can't give you precise dates.]


>Canada, too, was partially in English possession by 1603 because Humphrey 
>Gilbert and Raleigh established bases in Newfoundland. 

How long did Gilbert's settlement in Newfoundland last? What, by the
way, did Raleigh have to do with Newfoundland? I'd thought that he
had rather more to do with Virginia, Trinidad (which he briefly
seized) and the Guianas.

>So there was an Elizabeth I by 1603 in several of what became the 
>Dominions.

As a Scotch jury might say, 'not proven'.

>
>Of ourse, the whole argument is facetious. It doesn't matter a
>fig, because England is and always has been the ONLY nation of the
>United kingdom that really mattered throughout its history.
>
>Chris Still the Smartass

I await the descent upon your head of the combined wrath of all
Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish readers.  

-- 
____________________________________________________________________
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;                      
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic