Two Cause And Effects Elizabeth The First Becomes Queen Of England

Who is better protected, POTUS or the Queen of the UK?

The more appropriate comparison would be between the President and our Prime Minister, where I suspect the security provisions are more similar. But to answer the question you posit, POTUS is more aggressively and ostentatiously (if not always successfully) protected than the Queen.My parents would go to the Florida Keys for the Winter in the 1980s. Their visits sometimes coincided with President Bush Sr.’s fishing trips in the area. My dad would see him out on the water, in a fishing boat, with four dudes in black suits at the four corners of the vessel (way to blend in, guys). Though I wasn’t present to see it for myself, there are similar stories about how ridiculously obvious the “Secret” Service was when President Obama visited Ireland.When I was still living in the United States, President Clinton was visiting my city, and happened to be attending an event a block or two away from where I was working at the time. We had workmen (apparently unaware of anything special going on) on the roof of our office building doing repairs, and they were approached by Secret Service. I say approached; what I really mean is run at by gun-wielding guys shouting at them to “get on your knees!” and to “show us your hands!” and then interrogated to the nth degree. Helluva day to be fixing the roof on an office building.I currently live in London, a little over a mile from Buckingham Palace. I couldn’t even tell you if the Queen is in residence today. One day, my husband was on his way to work and his bus had to pass Westminster Abbey. He happened to look up from his book and just happened to spot a tiny lady getting into a nice car (with guys around who were presumably security, but just looked like businessmen). It took him a few seconds to realize that he was looking at his Queen. Not only were the streets not closed, most folks didn’t even notice.There are events or situations where traffic is held for a motorcade or some other situation, but it could be for any number of reasons. My husband, many moons ago, saw Prince Andrew in a motorcade, but that was it. I’ve seen the Prime Minister surrounded by heavy (though much more unobtrusive) security. I was even hustled away from a public pier because some D-List celebrity was filming something nearby. Nobody ever told me to “move along” or gave me grief for walking near Buckingham Palace (or Windsor, or Kensington Palace, for that matter).

What are the best historical fiction books you have ever read?

Yaaaay, finally somebody's interested in historical fiction. Well first of all, a book that really influenced the ideas of honour, gentlemaness, bravery, loyalty, and reselience to me, and a great favorite of mine is The Greatest Knight by Elizabeth Chadwick. It tells the tale of an unsung hero, a noble born son, William Marshall, and his rise as a knight amongst the lords of England and Normandy, the time setting is 11th century.The tale with it's ups and lows, action, courtship, personification of the royalty of the time, the honour and wisdom of some characters, and the insight into medieval life is what makes this book a favorite of mine. I also think the author being a woman is what makes William Marshall my favorite historical fiction character, he is the epitome of what both men and women aspire to, a gentleman and a knight.Second is a small book; Crusade by Elisabeth Laird, it tells of two boys: Adam an English boy who caretakes his lord's dogs, and Salim from Acre the son of a merchant. I really enjoyed this story and its insight into the different worlds of Muslim Mamluks and the English.Third is a series I'm reading now by Bernard Cornwell; The Saxon Tales. You know how some novels are emotionally exhausting to read? Well I find the Saxon Tales the opposite, I find them emotionally exhilarating due to the care free spirit of the protagonist and the adventurous theme of the novels, well most of the time, there is a certain king who is quite boring……. but never mind. The setting is of England before the Conquest of William the Conqueror, when Saxons ruled most of the land and new waves of terrifying warriors were coming from Scandinavia, the Vikings. It tells the story of Uhtred, a Saxon, son of clan chief who becomes a great warrior, and his story with the Saxons and Vikings in his life.Check out other books of Cornwell as well as he is quite famous in this genre.

What do Brits think of people who call the UK England?

I’m not wild about them, but in fairness, many English people make the same mistake, talking about ‘England and abroad’ or having an ‘English passport’. And given that people in the UK can’t decide if they’re one country, three or four, who can blame foreigners for being confused?As distasteful as this may seem nowadays, not least to people from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there were politicians from Scotland who described themselves as ‘English’, as Linda Colley wrote in Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837, Linda Colley, Yale University Press, 2005, page 162I remember meeting some Brazilian women in Edinburgh, whom I spoke to in Portuguese, and when I said I was English, one of them asked Daqui? (‘From here?’) to which I replied Não, estamos na Escócia, não Inglaterra! (‘No, we’re in Scotland, not England!’)In other languages, the words for ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ tend to be long-winded, with the use of ‘Great’ having more to do with avoiding confusion with Brittany than with greatness, hence Grande Bretagne in French as opposed to Bretagne, and so ‘England’ is used instead, although Iceland has the snappy Bretland.Similarly, speakers of other languages don’t tend to use an abbreviation for the United Kingdom, similar to ‘UK’, even though they have ones for the USA, like EEUU in Spanish, EUA in Portuguese or Usa in Italian. Sometimes the UK is called o RU in Portuguese and het VK in Dutch for short, but neither is common.Unlike other countries, the UK doesn’t care that much what the country is called by speakers of other languages in other countries, much less try and intervene, and even the BBC’s Chinese, Indonesian and Turkish services use the words for ‘England’ as they are more readily understood than the word for ‘Britain’.

What are the historical inaccuracies in The Crown Season 1?

The first season of The Crown was quite an enjoyable one, especially during a rainy weekend. However, it seems that in order to secure location access and even the silent approval of the palace, the producers grossly glossed over a major historic fact: Edward VIII was a treasonous Nazi.In the series he may be portrayed as a gullible and naive yet lovable and even wise uncle - but the king who abdicated was much more. Clearly he did not simply harbor a “continental romantic sentiment about totalitarian regimes” or “a sympathy for the leadership of Hitler”, but was a full blown Nazi. He even trained his young nieces to give Nazi salutes in preparation of the new Europe, about to be unified under the German rule.Even after his exile first to Lisbon and later to Bermuda, he proved to be a persisting traitor and plotted with Germany to be reinstated once they invaded Britain. (See: The man who wanted to be the Nazi King of England and also: Unmasked: Edward, the Nazi King of England).I do want to give the benefit of the doubt: maybe Edward VIII was steering the country in a direction that was in direct collision with the elected government and so he was ousted by employing the “following his heart” excuse.And yet one cannot be certain whether this monumental inaccuracy was dictated by the Palace in order to steer clear from the implication that the House of Windsor was un-patriotically hedging their bets (so that, win or lose WWII, the Crown would always stay in power) or to avoid bringing up their fresh German origin and, thus, rekindle the sentiments that their house may well not be the rightful heirs to the throne of England.In any case, this approach shattered any notion that The Crown is either accurate or objective.

What are some dark secrets about the British royal family?

These 14 Surprising Rules of the Royal Family That Even the Queen Cannot Break"With extraordinary power comes incredible duties", this is one expression which I accept to be extremely valid. What's more, with regards to the imperial family, this expression turns out to be considerably more unmistakable. It is seen that Her Majesty and the whole regal family takes after the principles without fall flat. It appears in the way they talk and walk that they are imperial and not simply by their blood, but rather by their conduct too. They adhere to the standards and influence others to do that also. How about we move to perceive what all principles they need to take after, which even the Queen can't break. Additionally read, What happen when ruler Elizabeth II passes on.Here is the rundown of those 14 decides that are required to be trailed by everybody in the imperial family:1. No One Can Eat Once the Queen is Done With Her Food2. They are Supposed to Spend the Festival of Christmas Together3. The Royal Family isn't Supposed to Travel Together4. They Need to Accept Gifts With Politeness and Grace5. They are Not Allowed to Wear Fur6. Their Attire Shouldn't Send Wrong Messages7. No One From Them Can be Roman Catholic8. They are Supposed to Sit and Walk at Processions According to the Family Hierarchy9. They Cannot Eat Shellfish10. They are Not Allowed to Play Monopoly11. They Cannot be a Part of Any Political Party or Office12. They Don't Have the Right to Vote13. Non-Royal Cannot Touch Them14. At the Tower of London, at least Six Ravens Must be KeptSo if you want to read the full the complete article please visit Weetjij : What are some dark secrets about the British royal family, Please Do let us know in the comments section on blog how did you like this article.

In 1947, did British decide to leave India or were forced to do so?

Britishers were forced to leave India. Many people will say that Gandhiji's mass movements triggered it, some will say world war 2 triggered it but the actual reason was something else.Gandhiji's movements definitely brought people together and that was needed to unite everyone for forming a free nation. But the movements didn't force britishers to leave India. Quit India movement was launched in 1942 and was not actually a success and India gained independence in 1947. So, the non violent movements were not actually the cause of Independence but were the cause of the unity of Indians.And about world war 2, yes it had an effect on the Indian independence but not a direct one. It was not that british economy was severely damaged and so they were forced to leave India. Same thing happened during the first world war and britishers, instead of leaving India, increased their cruelty by forcefully taking increased taxes and many other things.If you remember, before the “Sipahi Vidroh” there was company raj and not the british government raj. Before and after the “Sipahi Vidroh”, the britishers were ruling the country using army of Indians. There were about 50000 british soldiers and above 300000 Indian soldiers in the british army during “Sipahi Vidroh”. And so when Sipahis started Vidroh company raj was shown hell and the queen of england had to take over the control.Same thing happened after 1945. First the navy, then the air force and army started mutiny. And it was not the effect of Gandhiji's non violence movements. It was because of actions of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. When he formed the Ajad Hind Fauj in Germany and after that led the INA to fight for the Indian independence, the Indian men in the british forces were triggered to start mutiny. They were inflamed by the Red Fort trials. Mutiny was never the ideology of Gandhiji. And at that time there were only 40000 british troops in India who were eager to go home and in no mood to fight 2.5 million battle hardened India soldiers who were being demobilised. It is under these circumstances that british decided to grant independence to India.Most Indian history text books about freedom struggle are dominated by Gandhiji's non-violent movements but very little is mentioned about Netaji's and INA's contribution.

In your opinion, who is the most tragic figure in history?

Fyodor DostoevskyHe was raised in the family home in the grounds of the Mariinsky Hospital for the Poor (when he was a kid he played with the poor patients there)When a nine-year-old girl had been raped by a drunk, he was asked to fetch his father to attend to her. The incident haunted himOn 27 September 1837 Dostoevsky's mother died of tuberculosis (he was 15)Two years later his father died. He did some translation works. None were successful. Had real Financial problemsHis financial problems forced him to join the socialist Betekov circle (and then Petrashevsky Circle), a tightly knit community which helped him to surviveHe and his fellow "conspirators" were arrested on 23 April 1849 and were held in a well-defended fortress, which housed the most dangerous convicts.They sentenced the members of the circle to death by firing squad ! !The prisoners were taken to Semyonov Place in St Petersburg on 23 December 1849 where they were split into three-man groups. Dostoevsky was the third in the second row. The execution was stayed when a cart delivered a letter from the Tsar commuting the sentence. (he later described the horrors of waiting for execution in his great novel “The Idiot”) They were forgiven from death at the verge of their execution.He then served four years of exile with hard labor at Siberia ( he then described it in a very sad novel called “The House of the Dead”. )Classified as "one of the most dangerous convicts", Dostoevsky had his hands and feet shackled until his releaseHe was only permitted to read his New Testament bibleIn addition to all that he had seizures, he had haemorrhage , lost weight and was "burned by some fever, trembling and feeling too hot or too cold every night”He remained under police surveillance for the rest of his life and he was forced to serve in military for 2 years after the exile.During his time in Siberia he got Epilepsy.Married in 1857. wife didn’t like him. Financial problems (which existed most of his life). wife couldn’t handle the seizures. They mostly lived apartِIn 1864 his brother died. Some months later on the same year his wife died (probably from Tuberculosis).Married again in 1867. His daughter died after three months.In 1875 his last child, Alisha, died in the age of three.We can see the pain in his face…In 1881 the Tsar's secret police executed a search warrant in the apartment of one of Dostoevsky's neighbors. On the following day, Dostoevsky suffered a pulmonary haemorrhage and died.