HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: monaghan@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (N.O. Monaghan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Was Catholicism a capital offence in England?
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:01:28 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:
>It was claimed by somebody in this newsgroup a few days
>ago that being a Catholic in England was a capital offence
>till early in the reign of Queen Victoria.

>I checked the statutes dating from 1688-89, when anti-catholic
>sentiment (for obvious reasons) was at its height, to check

The period when laws against Catholics were most vigorous
would have been during the 16th century rather than later.

Being a Catholic was not a capital offence although I
believe fines were levied for non-attendance at the
Portestant church. However, Catholic priests were
in danger of being executed and many were.

Nils.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
N.O. Monaghan

monaghan@dcs.gla.ac.uk
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:57:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>(Though people might be beginning to wonder
>if an electoral system that gives the Liberal Democrats the opportunity to
>keep a failed government in power is a good thing, after their
>capitulation to Conservative pleas last Wednesday.)

Look how this Labour smear is spreading. Most of the Lib Dem
parliamentarians are fanatic supporters of European Unity (I am
a Lib Dem who is not BTW). The Lib Dem MPs voted as they did in
order to support Maastricht. The way you have phrased it sounds
like they were opposed to Maastricht but voted as they did in
order to support the Tory government. Labour charges that the
Lib Dem vote was for any reason other than sticking to
pro-European principles are completely unfounded.

Matthew Huntbach
From: fbowles@gssec.bt.co.uk (Frank K Bowles)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (reprise)
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:49:56 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <1992Nov5.214831.22450@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
|> Could someone explain what subset of the inhabitants of the British
|> isles the word Briton embraces? 

People from Great Britain (Scotland, Wales and England)

|> Likewise Great Britain

As above

, The United
|> Kingdom, etc.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain [see above] and Northern Ireland

  How do the two Irelands, Scottland and Wales fit
|> into all this?

Scotland - country, integral to Great Britain and the U.K., own legal system

England - Country, integral to Great Britain and the U.K., shares legal system with Wales

Wales - Principality, integral to Great Britain and the U.K., shares legal system with England

Northern Ireland - Province, in UK but not Great Britain, own legal system

All parts of the UK are ruled from Parliament in London

Republic of Ireland (Eire) - Part of Ireland (a British Isle) but otherwise completely sovereign state.  Parliament in Dublin

Isle of Man - A British Isle, not in GB, UK (nor European Community I think), own legal system, own Parliament nominally independent for home affairs, relies on UK for foreign affairs

Jersey - A British (Channel ) Isle - not in GB, not in UK, not in EC, own legal system, own Parliament nominally independent for home affairs, relies on UK for foreign affairs.

Guernsey, Alderney - as Jersey


|>  When is it proper to use the word Englishman/woman?

When describing a person from England (as Frenchman describes someone from France, German from Germany that kind of thing).  EMPHATICALLY NOT to describe people from other parts of the UK / British Isles
 
|> and do you have a gender-collective form for Englishperson (e.g.
|> like American)?

Not in common use. You could call them Angles but they wouldn't understand.

Scot is the only non-gender word in common use for a UK-person (i think)
|> 
|> There'll always be an England, but will there always be a Great
|> Britain and a U.K.?
|>

Geographically speaking, probably.
 

Frank
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank K Bowles, BT Glasgow Systems & Software Engineering Centre,
West TEC, 7 Caledon Street, Glasgow G12 9BY, Scotland. 
Tel: +44 41 220 5338     Email: fbowles@gssec.bt.co.uk
Fax: +44 41 220 2438     [GM4KAV]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15195 soc.culture.canada:8295
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: In your school?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:54:57 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <5NOV199203214252@sscvx1.ssc.gov>, godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes:
> In article <1d9qaoINNl0c@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
> > 
> >	[of diversity in Canada]
> 
> It is the lack of diversity that I disliked most.  Sure you have
> the French culture and the Inuits, both of which you have done
> your best to suppress, and I like those.

Let me see if I get this.   You claim to see a lack of diversity
in a country that contains several pretty healthy and active
cultures: two you mention, but several you do not.  You might
have added a note about the Chinese community, the Ukrainian,
the Mennonite, the Italian.   But hey, there's no diversity here,
we all know that.

> But the vast majority of Anglophone Canadians and hence the vast
> majority of Canadians are utterly boring, with no diversity at
> all.

Ah, so true.   There is absolutely no difference between culture
in Newfoundland, Mississauga, and Victoria Island.   Why didn't
you tell us about this before, Mr Godfrey?   We've been missing
it all along.

> Even the Asians and Middle-Eastern people you have absorbed have
> lost their identities and become just like everyone else - drab,
> mediocre.

It would be wisest for me to allow them to speak for themselves.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15394 alt.folklore.urban:27735
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:16:31 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <lfqrt4INNa64@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
>I would like to hear what the difference is between
>the Anglican church, and the Church of England.  This is in
>the context of the Monarch being the Supreme Head of Britain's 
>official state religion.

The Anglican communion comprises many different churches worldwide;
one of these, the Church of England, is the established church in
England (*not* Britain; the established church in Scotland is the
Church of Scotland, and the Church in Wales was disestablished
some time ago).



--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Split soc.culture.british
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:28:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.114701.1115@cas.org> jac54@cas.org () writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.024913.11452@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.205506.29648@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>>>
>>>The volume of messages in this group is getting very large - has
>>>anyone considered splitting the group?
>>>
>>
>>Which anyone do you think would be doing this considering?  You're
>>in this group as much as anyone, have *you* seen signs of anyone
>>considering "splitting" (how does one do this, one wonders) this
>>group?
>>
>>Yours mitotically, or is that meiotically,
>>sue
>>
>
>	Meiotically, this is a reduction division.
>
>

Or at least that's the expressed wish .  Newsgroups are certainly free to
expand to fill available bandwidth.  Now you know why I was uncertain
as to the proper term. ;-)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:42:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.131357.25739@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:

>Does this minority of votes cast for them give them a
>mandate to govern with an absolute majority in the house of commons?
>
If you believe that Proportional Representation is fair then No.
Otherwise Yes.

Personally I think it is fair and more practical. If PR were used then I
doubt very much anything would ever get passed in the House of Commons.
With the bias that is introduced to the system, this is less likely to
happen?

David





Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: eac@world.std.com (Eric A Cottrell)
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (reprise)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:06:19 GMT

In <1992Nov5.215829.22561@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>It seems to me that when someone says "I'm a Merkun" they are really

I thought that Monty Python did a song called "I'm a Merkun and I'm Okay".

73 Eric  eac@world.std.com
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (yet again)
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:37:31 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov10.101341.12690@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: pjd@unislc.uucp (Priscilla Davidson)
>>A British woman living in the area wrote to take exception to a column
>>that described British food as "swill." (I think that was the word.)
>>She closed the letter with this:  "As we Brits would say, . . . ."
>>                                         ^^^^^
>>Do you think she's been living among the 'Merkuns too long?
>
>I saw the word "Brit" used the other day in the headline of a
>British tabloid newspaper (I hasten to say that I wsn't reading
>the thing, just noticed it when someone else was reading it
>next to me on the train). Like several other words, it's use is
>probably encouraged by being short and easy to fit in tabloid
>headlines.
>
>Matthew Huntbach

Hope you didn't inhale. You never know, the guy
might have been smoking something too.

g.p.
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Goldsmith's Coll, students
Keywords: Information
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:37:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: jharrel@domo.claremont.edu (John Harrelson)
>I'll be attending Goldsmith's Coll London ca.1/93...Is there someone on the
>line who can and will tell me some things re:comp.lab equipment, Brit class
>(course) time/structure, local features of Lewisham (good/bad/indifferent),
>nearest coffee, latest train, closest record shop, and cheapest food.

It's difficult to think of anything definite to say about
Lewisham. It's somewhere in the wilderness of "Sarf London". Not
central enough to be in walking distance of any of the
interesting London sites. Not far out enough to be near any
countryside. Not rich enough to be genteel suburban. Not poor
enough to be wild inner-city. It's a big enough area for your
more specific questions about shops, trains etc not to be
answerable - depends on where you live in Lewisham. In fact you
will probably spend most of your time wishing you lived
anywhere else in London but Lewisham, which you would be well
advised to, except for the fact that most other places would be
more expensive.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: wisp@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Wisp)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:13:49 GMT

In article <BxG0Ix.G9y@newcastle.ac.uk> Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov6.092300.23437@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, wisp@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Wisp) writes:
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely right! Apart form all the misery he caused on the mainland, lets
>>not forget his 'Hearts and Minds' tour of Ireland (Drogheda, Wexford etc.),
>>which is still quoted today as a major reason for the enmity between
>>Ireland and GB...
>>
>>The Wisp. [of course, just like the holocaust, it's all fake propaganda...]
>
>Not fake but the similar treatment handed out to the "english settlers" by the
>irish in the years preceeding it are conveniantly forgotten by people touting
>this as a good reason for a bit of emnity. It's a pity that the only thing a lot
>of people seem to learn from history is a reason to hate.
>
 I'm with you on the last point, Trev, but 'english settlers' have been fried
and otherwise massacred all over the world, just as we've always tried to
do to people who invade us...

The Wisp. [who *really* loves David Irwin...]
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15286 alt.folklore.urban:27570
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:03:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <8200.9211060924@thor.cf.ac.uk>, spxsjm@thor.cf.ac.uk (Mr S J Morris 92) writes:
> As for non-Catholics, there was virtually unlimited religious freedom.
> The period saw an enormous proliferation of religious groups -
> Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Quakers, Levellers, True
> Levellers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchists... - who so long as they toed the
> line and didn't start using violence against those who disagreed with
> them (the Fifth Monarchists fell down here) could say and do what they
> liked.

Sure -- since as I recall the Jews had been expelled from the country
some years earlier, even they didn't have to worry...
From: dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Was Catholicism a capital offence in England?
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:35:15 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

It was claimed by somebody in this newsgroup a few days
ago that being a Catholic in England was a capital offence
till early in the reign of Queen Victoria.

I checked the statutes dating from 1688-89, when anti-catholic
sentiment (for obvious reasons) was at its height, to check
what laws concerning Catholics were passed by the parliament
of William and Mary.  One would expect the most severe laws
against Catholics in operation during the 17th Century
to date from this period.  There are two statutes,
dating from the beginning of the reign.  Their titles
summarize their content pretty effectively:

   1 Will. and Mar. c.9.
   "An Act for the amoving Papists and reputed Papists
   from the Cities of London and Westminster and ten
   Miles Distance from the same."

   1 Will. and Mar. c.17.
   "An act for the better securing the Government by
   disarming Papists and reputed Papists."

In each case, the penalties specified in the acts applied
to people who refused to swear a prescribed oath dating
from the time of Charles II.

Exempted from the first of these acts are the households
of foreign ambassadors and the Queen Dowager, and bona fide
tradesmen.  (I cannot remember of hand the precise form of
words used to describe the latter.)

The second of the acts allowed for the confiscation of arms
from those refusing to swear the oath (though refusants could
be permitted by a magistrate to retain some arms
for self-defence).  Any refusant who refused to hand over,
or attempted to hide, his arms would be liable to a few
months in jail and an appropriate fine.  The act also
allowed for the confiscation of horses worth 5 pounds
or more.

There was also a statute (11 Will. III, c.4) intended to
`protect' children from being brought up as catholics.

These acts were repealed in the reign of Queen Victoria.

None of the above laws make catholicism a capital offence,
and moreover are clearly motivated by the fear that
catholics would regard the King and Queen as usurpers
and remain loyal to the deposed King James II and his
heirs (as indeed many of them did in 1715 and 1745).
Thus catholics in England at this time were regarded
in much the same light as communists in the U.S.A
during the McCarthy era.

In the light of the above, is it still claimed that
catholicism was a capital offence in England up to the
time of Queen Victoria?

DRW
From: cicero@hotcity.COM (Andreas Locicero)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: In your school?
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:38:50 PST
Organization: BBS

>>: It's true, I dislike Canada a great deal.
>>: 
>>: Laurence
>> 
>>You cannot find a good psychotherapist in Britain, Laurence?
>> 
>>-- 
>>Brian Ross                         "How do we arrange lures in our tackle
box?
>>bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     From left to right, according to size and

>>                                    frequency of use." -- Anal-Retentive
Chef.
>
>Thanks, there are quite a few good ones here.  I have done some counselling
>myself, in fact.  I have never sought it, however. Do you feel that all those
>who dislike Canada are in need of psychotherapy?  If so, I would suggest
>that it is you, not I, whose judgement is at fault.
>
>Laurence
>
Alright Laurence, so why don't you tell us all why you hate Canada so much? 
Surely you have good reasons!  Ever even been there?  (Star spangled banner
swelling in the background) We Americans believe in freedom of speech and
opinion, but we don't take kindly to varmints like you taken potshots at our
good buddys up north without any rational!  So out with it bright boy what's so
bad about Canada?  Eh?  It's beautiful there, the people are very nice, the
food is good, and they helped save your whole damned country in WWII!  So lets
hear it.

A.J. LoCicero >> cicero@hotcity.com

The opinions expressed above ARE those of my employer!
This message comes to you from beautiful Morgan Hill, California, U.S.A.:
The front line in the war against suburbanization!
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:45:48 GMT
	<1992Nov5.153006.13711@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Nov5.153006.13711@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

   In fact a lot of Britain's decline can be blamed precisely on
   the imperialist mentality.

[ rest of article deleted ]

Thanks Matthew, you put it brilliantly.

   I suspect the self-deprecation is something of a reaction to
   the ridiculousness of late imperial pretensions, though I agree
   with you that it sometimes goes over the top - it is most
   certainly wrong, for example, to see the British Empire purely
   in terms of "stealing wealth".

Well, maybe there was an element of trade in there too; but not always
beneficial & fair trade by any means (the opium trade to China, for example?
Hardly different from the Colombian drug barons of today).  Christian
missionaries went here and there, and there were some misguided attempts to
bring "civilisation" to people, but the main point of the whole thing was to
make money.  When it was turned into "the Empire", in Victoria's time, it
started to decline.

Anyway, the whole thing seems so silly now that it quite amazes me that
someone should be arguing *for* the ludicrous Victorians...
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: English Terms (40's, 50's,'60's)
Keywords: Ted, Mod, et al 
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:08:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.013958.5677@muddcs.claremont.edu>, jharrel@domo.claremont.edu (John Harrelson) writes:
|> 
|> Help, please...
|> TeddyBoy= male, bad boy 
|> Mod= ? 
|> Rocker= ? 
|> FEMALE ROLE NAMES, please...
|>  If yo' momma was a ______ who married a Rocker, what was she? 
|>  If yo' momma married a Mod, what was she? 
|>  If HER mama married a Ted, what was she? (yeah, pregnant...I don't need that)

Mods wore Carnaby Street gear and rode motor scooters.  Rockers wore
leather and rode motorcycles.
-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
From: A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:33:16 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge

In article <BxF4G7.7vK@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> monaghan@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (N.O. Monaghan) writes:
>I do not think there is any constitutional reason why the Prime
>Minister should not be a Catholic. However I think there may

Apropos of this, what about the Irish PM and President? Is there any
constitutional requirement that they _should_ be Catholics? Or would it
just be very difficult if they weren't?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15542 alt.folklore.urban:27969
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 10 Nov 92 09:59:42 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave)
>One minor point I say almost every week "...we believe in one holy, catholic
>and apostolic church...". So in this respect I consider myself to be an
>Anglo-Catholic, but I am not a Roman Catholic. So don't use the term catholic
>when you mean Roman Catholic.

If you believe there is "one holy catholic and apostolic
church" then why remain a member of a separate church that
deliberately split off from that one holy catholic church in
order that a randy king could legitimise his bit of nooky?
There is only one Catholic Church, the one that is loyal to the
see of Peter so the "Roman" is superfluous. Don't use the term
"Roman Catholic" when you mean "Catholic".

Matthew Huntbach