h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

erm - just how many years ago was that?



It could have only been one of two couples - one of which was me and my ex

http://www.lyoncapitale.fr/anciens/70anglo.html


The useless so-and-so of a restaurant critic messed up on my surname by the way!

I'm trying to remember. I think it was more of a restauraunt than a pub, but the bit about doing the conversion yourself does ring a bell. And I have no clear idea how old the RD in question was. A couple of years, at least.

No, hang on: I mentioned it to my French teacher in school. I quoted her the line "Lyon regards itself as the food capital of France and, therefore, the world". She liked the "therefore"! And if I mentioned it to her I must have read it at least four years ago. And it was probably older, as we don't buy it. You pick them up in places. They never go much out of date, really.

TRiG.

"There's also the idea that the French kings were very powerful, whereas our monarchy always had some constraint on its powers, whether that was strong nobles, or Parliament. The French lost our monarchy, we didn't and it has lead to differences that way. Under the monarchy, the state was the king. Under the various republics, there has always been the ethos of equality, even when that equality is oppressive, as we saw with the revent riots. The British have always had a state that is divided when it comes to power and so the individual has been more important."

I think that's very simplistic. Don't forget that the English did abolish the monarchy, over a hundred years before the French did, and the Commonwealth only failed because English republicanism was fractious and Parliament feared the power of the army. The restoration was not, as romantic myth has it, because England and Monarchy are inseparable but because Commonwealth rule had brought with it puritanism and because people preferred Monarchical rule to the potential chaos that existed under the last period of Commonwealth rule that followed Richard Cromwell's stepping-down. George Monke, the NMA general who helped restore the monarchy fought in the Parliamentary armies, he was not a monarchist, he was a pragmatist.

Also, the restoration was arguably a mistake, Charles II was as arrogant and autocratic as his father and pushed Parliament over the question of his successor nearly leading to another civil war. On his deathbed, he converted to Roman Catholicism, which at the time would have been hugely unpopular in England (something he was doubtless aware of). After his death, his chosen successor, James II, was deposed by a dutch invasion in a coup de tait and his replacement, William III, oversaw the stripping of most of the monarch's powers (William was interested in only the title of King of England) and transferred them to Parliament via the Bill of Rights - effectively England became a "crowned republic", a monarchy in name only and the English destroyed the autocratic monarchy they had tried to once before without risking the instability of another Commonwealth. Whilst England remained a "monarchy" it was an entirely different breed of that system to the rest of Europe and that would remain the case up until the 20th century.

The French, meanwhile, were also not exactly a smooth transition from monarchy to republic - the first French republic lasted around a decade before Napoleon seized power and formed a new monarchal system - the Empire. After the fall of the restored French monarchy another brief French republic was formed, again with a Napoleon as it's head who again restored the Napoleonic Empire (one that lasted rather longer this time). It wasn't until the late 19th century, after the fall of Napoleon III, that a politically stable French republic was formed.

>>I think that's very simplistic<<

Yeah, it was, but I think there is a point there.

We got rid of our monarch, and became a republic, as did the French. People percieved problems in the republic and the monarchy was restored, as happened in France also. Our replacement monarchs turned out to be a nightmare, as did the French ones. Both were removed after a time.

The difference is that we eventually hit upon a monarch who could work within the parliamentary system, and the executive and the legislative bodies have gotten on reasonably well since. The French didn't do this, their executive, be they monarch or president, has always struggled with the legislature, a struggle that has calmed a bit recently.

>It wasn't until the late 19th century, after the fall of Napoleon III, that a politically stable French republic was formed<

I'd argue very strongly that neither the 3rd nor 4th French republics were politically stable - they both lurched from crisis to crisis, and it was only with the advent of the current 5th republic that France has become politically stable, while Britain has been politically stable for at least 200 years

As an Englishman married to a French lady, I really don't think the differences are that significant. Particularly on a global scale. I think in a lot of ways, the English are more different from the Americans then they are from the French, despite the common language.

I just wanted to pick up a few points.

The myth that the French lost all their battles is just that. They won the 100 years war, won many battles under Louis XIV, were instrumental in helping the USians kick the Brits out, won nearly all the revolutionary and Napoleonic era battles...

The hygiene thing is also a red herring. On balance, I think I've met more smelly Brits than smelly French.

In addition we're getting closer together - twenty years ago, you could have taken addition to wine and food as a big difference. Now, there are a lot of foodie english who know their wine. The French haven't picked up the binge drinking though. But they are starting to consume a lot of fast food...

It's lots of little things more than the big stuff - attitude to qualifications, the way the women dress, the weather...

And finally, we shouldn't forget that there are significant exchanges of population between the two countries. Thousands of French in London, thousands of Brits in the rural south of France.

sprout

"It's lots of little things more than the big stuff "

Interesting point - it's those things that people notice.

People don't come back from Thailand or Morocco saying "the people are so different from us", because they EXPECT difference, and get it. Also, they get *fundamental* differences like levels of poverty, type of government, religion, etc., differences so large they seem to go off the scale and transform the natives into interesting aliens rather than fellow humans.

But you can SEE France from England. You can go there on the train. When you go there, it's similar enough (democracy, Christianity, dogs on leads not on menus) that you have a somewhat reasonable expectation that it will be identical - and it's where it fails to be identical that you notice.

SoRB