User Name Explanation

[dargorygel]

Anyone else?

[Foxcastle]

I’m literally a fox and I literally live in a castle

[Percy Williams]

I stalked MU for months, finding the most interesting person I could track down to their Australian home, and "take care of", so that I could assume their Identity on Webdip. I chickened out, and didn't claim to be him, and I'm still taking really good care of him right now.

[MajorMitchell]

First to the subject of the thread. I'm Australian and when we say someone is a bit of a galah we're implying that they are a bit silly, a bit daffy in a likeable way. There's lots of species of parrots, also known as galahs in Australia and one of the larger galahs is named after an explorer and it has a lovely slightly orange/red/pinkish crest on it's head...the Major Mitchell Galah.
So I picked it because I often behave like a galah & it reflects my love of my country and I have pet birds.. parrots.

Now to pick up on a point in Odo the Great's post about the "last successful military invasion" of England. In my opinion the last successful military invasion of England (in the real world) was that of William and Mary (?) of Orange circa 1600?
They did land an army in England, but no military conflict was required to secure the throne. So because it was so successful and no battles were fought it's not regarded as a military invasion. Which I think is wrong. An army landed, it's threat certainly encouraged a rapid diplomatic agreement by the English Parliament.

[Percy Williams]

First to the subject of the thread. I'm Australian and when we say someone is a bit of a galah we're implying that they are a bit silly, a bit daffy in a likeable way. There's lots of species of parrots, also known as galahs in Australia and one of the larger galahs is named after an explorer and it has a lovely slightly orange/red/pinkish crest on it's head...the Major Mitchell Galah.
So I picked it because I often behave like a galah & it reflects my love of my country and I have pet birds.. parrots.

Now to pick up on a point in Odo the Great's post about the "last successful military invasion" of England. In my opinion the last successful military invasion of England (in the real world) was that of William and Mary (?) of Orange circa 1600?
They did land an army in England, but no military conflict was required to secure the throne. So because it was so successful and no battles were fought it's not regarded as a military invasion. Which I think is wrong. An army landed, it's threat certainly encouraged a rapid diplomatic agreement by the English Parliament.

What he neglects to mention is that his actual name is Percy Williams, and he considers me a bit of a galah. ( This is not Doxxing as I am making this up, don't believe me I'm an idiot on the internet trying to be funny, please do not sue.)

[Senlac]

First to the subject of the thread. I'm Australian and when we say someone is a bit of a galah we're implying that they are a bit silly, a bit daffy in a likeable way. There's lots of species of parrots, also known as galahs in Australia and one of the larger galahs is named after an explorer and it has a lovely slightly orange/red/pinkish crest on it's head...the Major Mitchell Galah.
So I picked it because I often behave like a galah & it reflects my love of my country and I have pet birds.. parrots.

Now to pick up on a point in Odo the Great's post about the "last successful military invasion" of England. In my opinion the last successful military invasion of England (in the real world) was that of William and Mary (?) of Orange circa 1600?
They did land an army in England, but no military conflict was required to secure the throne. So because it was so successful and no battles were fought it's not regarded as a military invasion. Which I think is wrong. An army landed, it's threat certainly encouraged a rapid diplomatic agreement by the English Parliament.

But William of Orange was INVITED by parliament! It wasn’t even gate crashing let alone an invasion.

[Odo the Great]

Senlac is where the invaders under Duke William of Normandy defeated the Saxons under Harold Godwinson in 1066, commonly known as the Battle of Hastings. I visited as a history obsessed schoolboy on the 1966 anniversary & was always fascinated by the story of the last successful English invasion.
I’ve used the name ever since where a “nom de plume” is required.

Mwhaha, the English like to believe that's the last successful invasion.. I forgive you though, as a history obsessed schoolboy in '66 you didn't have the luxury of wikipedia and had to rely on state propaganda.

Eudes d'Aquitaine etait le plus grand duc d'Aquitaine.

Even with the magnificent resource of Wikipedia you’ve lost me. I see many references to this Duke of Aquitaine, but they all predate 1066 & don’t involve Britain. What invasion are you referring to that was so successful as to be undetected?..

Don't want to derail this thread, but yeah, MajorMitchell is right. The glorious revolution is the last invasion of England, re-branded by English historians as a 'revolution' to keep the 1066 myth alive. Other examples of 'post William the Conqueror invasions' are the many Scottish invasions (with and without French and Irish help). Proper invasions from the continent are those of the Spanish Armada (very unsuccessful) and the first three Anglo-Dutch wars (successful). For example, the Raid on Medway (1667) was a proper invasion, destroying the majority of the English fleet lying at anchor and capturing some coastal fortresses, leading to a quick sue for peace by the English.

[Senlac]

Mwhaha, the English like to believe that's the last successful invasion.. I forgive you though, as a history obsessed schoolboy in '66 you didn't have the luxury of wikipedia and had to rely on state propaganda.

Eudes d'Aquitaine etait le plus grand duc d'Aquitaine.

Even with the magnificent resource of Wikipedia you’ve lost me. I see many references to this Duke of Aquitaine, but they all predate 1066 & don’t involve Britain. What invasion are you referring to that was so successful as to be undetected?..

Don't want to derail this thread, but yeah, MajorMitchell is right. The glorious revolution is the last invasion of England, re-branded by English historians as a 'revolution' to keep the 1066 myth alive. Other examples of 'post William the Conqueror invasions' are the many Scottish invasions (with and without French and Irish help). Proper invasions from the continent are those of the Spanish Armada (very unsuccessful) and the first three Anglo-Dutch wars (successful). For example, the Raid on Medway (1667) was a proper invasion, destroying the majority of the English fleet lying at anchor and capturing some coastal fortresses, leading to a quick sue for peace by the English.

http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16880630.htm

You could say William of Orange subsequently invaded Ireland, but to claim his accession to the throne of England was an invasion is a stretch. He was invited to ascend the throne to avoid another Catholic King of England.
This is at most participation in a civil dispute, not a foreign invasion.
I would rebuff all the other examples as well, but that would definitely hijack the thread & probably bore the readership.

[Odo the Great]

Calling the glorious revolution an invasion is not a stretch at all, professional historians do, why not we? A foreign nobleman lands a huge foreign army, swiftly wins one battle (battle of Reading) and seizes the throne. That's the Merriam-Webster definition of invasion. That it was supported by a part of parliament (conspirators) is irrelevant. A lot of extremely successful invasions always lean on local support. The Glorious revolution comes at the end of the first three Anglo-Dutch wars, the Dutch were the enemy of the English crown at the time.

That all said, there's no way you can rebuff calling the Raid of Medway an invasion... The myth shatters, it's okay

[dargorygel]

As usual, the debate centers around definitions. What is an 'invasion?' The choice of definition informs the event.

Usually, one effect of 'winning' is that you get to act like you have the power to 'define.'

[MajorMitchell]

William of Orange's successful campaign I suggest fulfills the traditional requirements for an invasion. He brought a professional army from Europe with him, it is opposed by military force. Does the fact that his army quickly defeated the opposition and the rival claimant to the throne flees somehow mean it is not an invasion ? I doubt it. It's almost the perfect invasion, and the successful propaganda campaign works perfectly as well by convincing the natives that "this is what they wanted". That's the best part.. it adds a legitimacy that is superimposed onto the aquisition by force majeure.. to the degree that William's invasion is rebranded as a "Glorious Revolution", the politically convenient myth becomes the orthodox version of history.

[MajorMitchell]

Perhaps another invasion occurs during WW2.. that of the Servicemen of the USA who, armed with plenty of cash, chocolates and candy bars and nylon stockings seduce innumerable young English women.

[Senlac]

William of Orange's successful campaign I suggest fulfills the traditional requirements for an invasion. He brought a professional army from Europe with him, it is opposed by military force. Does the fact that his army quickly defeated the opposition and the rival claimant to the throne flees somehow mean it is not an invasion ? I doubt it. It's almost the perfect invasion, and the successful propaganda campaign works perfectly as well by convincing the natives that "this is what they wanted". That's the best part.. it adds a legitimacy that is superimposed onto the aquisition by force majeure.. to the degree that William's invasion is rebranded as a "Glorious Revolution", the politically convenient myth becomes the orthodox version of history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_ ... ing_(1688)

NOTE
“James had posted an advance guard of 600 Irish Catholics under Patrick Sarsfield in Reading to stop the march of the Dutch towards London.”

So the English king (Scottish by birth) posted Irish Catholics (all 600 of them) to prevent William of Orange reaching London. This fearsome contingent ran for the hills (predictably) & Uncle Jim (James II) ran soon after, leaving Nephew Billy with the kingdom, much to the celebration of the Protestant English (especially in Reading, for many years celebrated the anniversary). So the populace got conned then...
Talk about rewriting history!

[Senlac]

Perhaps another invasion occurs during WW2.. that of the Servicemen of the USA who, armed with plenty of cash, chocolates and candy bars and nylon stockings seduce innumerable young English women.

I see the Australian tradition of sledging lives on..

[Percy Williams]

Perhaps another invasion occurs during WW2.. that of the Servicemen of the USA who, armed with plenty of cash, chocolates and candy bars and nylon stockings seduce innumerable young English women.

I see the Australian tradition of sledging lives on..

I feel like everyone on Webdip is secretly from Australia.

[Odo the Great]

Senlac, fighting is not a requirement for an invasion. Since you like links so much, here is a list of all invasions (successful and not) of England:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_England

On the glorious revolution, one of Britains most prominent historians, Jonathan Israel writes:
"... So grotesque a distortion of our past is unlikely to stem from haphazard oversight. Rather, it is likely to reflect assumptions and prejudgements deeply rooted in our culture and reinforced by our approach to the study and teaching of history.

Hitherto, all British interpretations of the Glorious Revolution, whether in the so-called 'Whig' tradition which celebrates it as a great and triumphant event, or 'revisionist' and less adulatory, have viewed the upheaval as a domestic revolution generated by a broad coalition of groups opposed to the royal absolutism and religious policies of James II (who reigned 1685-88). With the help of a small foreign army under the Dutch Stadholder, the Prince of Orange (William III) Parliament gained control of the country, dethroned James II with the support of much of the public, disinherited his heir, the Prince of Wales, passed the Bill of Rights and the Toleration Act, secured the special position of the Church of England, and created a constitutional monarchy in England in which there was a wholly new balance between Crown and Parliament - with Parliament supreme. Parliament remodelled the monarchy in England, Scotland and Ireland by putting William and Mary on the throne, as joint sovereigns, in place of James II.

This is the picture presented in the history books and taught at school. Yet the truth is dramatically different. In reality England (and later Ireland) was invaded by a large and well-trained foreign army, initially 21,000 men but later increased, that was brought here in November 1688 on 500 ships - an armada four times larger than the Spanish armada of 1588. This vast strategic exercise drew additional troops and resources from Germany and Scandinavia and was undertaken in collusion with several other Protestant and Catholic powers.

The invasion was planned and organised long before a tiny group of unrepresentative, and not particularly important, English dissidents sent their so-called 'invitation' to the Prince of Orange. And although William led the invasion, he had very limited powers in the Dutch Republic. The armada and army were sent, and paid for, by the Dutch States General, Amsterdam and the regents, the group of urban patricians who ran the Dutch state. The Dutch army landed in Devon and gained military control of southern England. It had little assistance from the English rebels. They were too frightened to move against James II's substantial standing army until some three weeks after William's invasion had begun. ..."

You can read up on your history in:
'The Anglo-Dutch Moment. Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact', edited by Jonathan Israel, was published by the Cambridge University Press in 1991

And then please open a new thread where you explain that the Raid of Medway is not an invasion..

[Senlac]

As was mentioned previously it depends on the definition of an invasion chosen to determine if you agree one has occurred.
“Senlac, fighting is not a requirement for an invasion.”

The English were never going to oppose William taking the throne as illustrated by the people of Reading helping the Dutch (all 250 of them) beat the Irish forces of the king. The Catholic Stuart kings were unpopular to the extent that James II’s granddad was beheaded.
But you’re right, there was no way the Dutch invasion was ever going to be stopped by the English throne.

To take a more recent example. The Germans “invaded” Holland in 1940. Was the subsequent allied victory in 1945 also an “invasion” or a liberation?
The Protestant parliamentarians & people of England regarded William as a liberator as far as I understand English history, from the Catholic Stuart Kings.

[Vaporwave]

I feel like everyone on Webdip is secretly from Australia.

yes, oh yes, I wish I were an Aussie. Wait, I'm online, I can pretend to be Aussie and nobody will find out the real truth

[Odo the Great]

Of course, the Germans invaded the Netherlands and so did the Allied forces. D-Day is 'the invasion of Normandy'. They're all invasions. I'm not the one claiming 'England hasn't been invaded successfully since 1066'. By whatever definition, England was invaded after 1066. British historians agree on this. During the second Anglo-Dutch war, England was invaded, the armed forces fought and were defeated. Navy destroyed. During the glorious revolution England was again invaded, this time without much fighting. The king was disposed of by a foreigner. There's no discussion of definitions, there's just your unwillingness to admit you've been misinformed.

This whole issue is of particular interest to me, because I'm a big fan of the history of negationist history. Although calling this particular issue negationism is a bit too strong for my taste. However, I find it fascinating how long some of these patriotic myths endure and end up as 'fact' in school books. It's really funny to see that all nations are guilty of this in one way or another.

[Senlac]

Of course, the Germans invaded the Netherlands and so did the Allied forces. D-Day is 'the invasion of Normandy'. They're all invasions. I'm not the one claiming 'England hasn't been invaded successfully since 1066'. By whatever definition, England was invaded after 1066. British historians agree on this. During the second Anglo-Dutch war, England was invaded, the armed forces fought and were defeated. Navy destroyed. During the glorious revolution England was again invaded, this time without much fighting. The king was disposed of by a foreigner. There's no discussion of definitions, there's just your unwillingness to admit you've been misinformed.

This whole issue is of particular interest to me, because I'm a big fan of the history of negationist history. Although calling this particular issue negationism is a bit too strong for my taste. However, I find it fascinating how long some of these patriotic myths endure and end up as 'fact' in school books. It's really funny to see that all nations are guilty of this in one way or another.

In which case we can reach agreement. Using your premises a lot of historical events could be termed “successful invasions” (the phrase I originally used regarding 1066) that I would never describe that way.
As is often the case semantics & terminology lead to a debate where the historical facts are not in dispute by the participants.