Spanish Armada Assaults Gibraltar

Sir Francis Drake discovered that the Spanish don’t like it up ’em

Minister’s fury at Spanish moves to take over Gibraltar waters as Navy warship moves in | Mail Online

Royal Navy warships have forced a an armed Spanish ship to retreat from British waters around Gibraltar.

Typical Spaniards, resorting to sneaky, dirty tactics thinking that us Brits would back down!

Bulldog spirit

Then again, these days they were probably odds on that Britain would back down. We have become a spineless nation bearing little or no resemblance to the nation that stood up to Napoleon and then Hitler.

We have become a nation of weaklings and leftist whiners. If the Second World War were to happen today, we’d be Italy or worse, France.

Neville Chamberlain wouldn’t meet with Hitler to discuss peace or appeasement, today he would be handing over our unconditional surrender. Well, perhaps that is a little too harsh, there are after all some quarters wherein the bulldog spirit still lies, typically the hard done by working class.

In fact a little sabre rattling or even a good war normally goes down well with those people. It certainly worked for Maggie Thatcher, although rumours that Gordon Brown has orchestrated the whole affair, or even a war, appear unfounded.

hypocrites

The Spanish are complete hypocrites when it comes to claiming bits of land. They whinge and complain about Gibraltar, which they lost fair and square, demanding that the Rock and the 30,000 inhabitants be handed straight over to them, despite the fact that the 30,000 overwhelmingly don’t want to be Spanish.

Yet, at the same time they are keeping control of Ceuta which is across the Med in Morocco! They claim that it is part of the Spanish State and therefore belongs to them, despite being in Morocco itselt and despite Morocco repeatedly trying to claim it.

Penon de Alhucemas viewed from Mororroco; Spain must seem awfully close to the Moroccans.

Melilla is another example, a good 100 miles away from Spain itself, this Spanish town is also located in Morocco, which also claims it. Each of these ‘Spanish’ towns has more than double the population of Gibraltar, and Spain has no intention of ever letting them go.

Nor do they have any intention of letting the Moroccans have back; Penon de Velez de la Gomera, the islands of Penon de Alhucemas and Islas Chafarinas,despite them being in Morocco, or just off the coast.

This of course begs the question, if they won’t give their former colony its land back, why on Earth should we hand over 30,000 Brits, living on 2 square miles of rock?

History

Gibraltar ended up in British hands during the War of the Spanish Succession. When the Treaty was signed ending that war, the Spanish gave the British Gibraltar permanently as part of the peace agreement. Clearly the Spanish word for permanently isn’t quite as permanent as the English one.

The duplicitous Spaniards took each and every opportunity since then to get the Island back, including siding with the American’s in the War of Independence and laying siege to Gibraltar with the French for three years.

At the end of the day though, it is just a rock and few people in Britain really care about a lump of rock in the Mediterranean. But is is the people that live there that matter. In 1967 the Islanders were asked whether they wanted to join Spain, they voted 12,138 to 44 against. Pretty conclusive.

Another referendum was held in 2002, 17,900 to 187 against joining Spain. Clearly however joining Spain is becoming more popular, so in about another 1000 years, Spain will get Gibraltar back peacefully!

Incidentally, the Channel Islands, just off the coast of France, have never been claimed back by France.

Naval Power

Type 45 Class Destroyer: The lone Spanish destroyer looks nothing like this

Although no longer the naval power she once was, Britain still has the most poweful navy in Europe (excluding Russia). Britain has two aircraft carriers, although both of them are a bit shit. Spain has just the one.

Spain has 8 submarines, but Britain has 17.

When it comes to Destroyers, the British have 11, the Spanish, just the one. But things are more closely matched in Frigates, Britain has 21 Frigates, Spain has 15.

Of course the naval power isn’t all that relevent when you consider that Spain shares a border with Gibraltar and can just pop troops over. Still it is worth noting, as is the fact that the RAF is three times larger than the Spanish airforce, and that Britain has more active troops.

In the unlikely event that Spain, like its former colony Argentina, may try and take its claim by force, it is reassuring to know that Britain is more than capable of fighting its corner. Of course having the equipment and having the will are two entirely different things, but Gordon won’t be in power for much longer.

The Spanish, and others, are likely sensing a weakness in Brown’s Britain, hopefully our next leader will have more balls, and give the Spanish a bloody nose.

Advertisements

24 responses to “Spanish Armada Assaults Gibraltar

  1. The other bit is that they claim Gibraltar is far away from the UK (which is an irrelevant point).

    Especially ridiculous when you consider that they claim the Canary Islands are ‘integral’ to the Spanish state – however they are far further away from the Spanish mainland than Gibraltar is from the UK.

    What is more, Gibraltar does not claim to be part of the UK – but it is British (like the UK, and the Channel Islands, and …)

    • Thanks for the comment Monty, good point about the Canary Islands, they are of course worth far more to the Spanish that Gibraltar is to us.

      Perhaps the next time the Spanish decide to close the border, cut the gas, electricity or water to Gibraltar, we should impose a similar air and sea blockade of the Canary Islands.

      Then again that would require a PM with backbone and balls.

  2. The Spaniard

    Britain´s naval and military power proved isufficient when China stood up to Britain over Hong Kong. Britain didn´t have the guts to speak of self-determination for Hong Kong or the wishes of her ex- colony´s population because she knew China was not to be fooled or held out on. During the Falklands war England needed all the help of the USA and NATO to defeat an isolated country and even contemplated a nuclear attack. That´s the sad truth of your country, you valiant britons.

    • What utter rubbish!

      China has given Hong Kong a kind of autonomy unparalleled in modern China, only Taiwan has similar rights, and they are not even part of China. At the end of the day Britain didn’t really have a leg to stand on, it was a 99 year lease, I am sure that countries like Spain would have been first in line claiming foul had we reneged on that deal.

      There was no lease on Gibraltar nor on the Falklands.

      The USA provided no help whatsoever in the Falklands war, nor did NATO. Indeed the US didn’t want Britain to go to war at all and wanted us to settle it peacefully, i.e. give another Spanish speaking nation full rights over a rock, regardless of what its people wanted.

      There was never any talk of a nuclear attack, that is ridiculous.

      Look I have nothing against Spain, just their ridiculous claims on land that doesn’t belong to them. I notice you didn’t mention the Spanish cities in Morocco! What would you do with Gibraltar if you had it?

      Anyway the Spanish too are valiant, after all we’d all be speaking French were it not for your courageous efforts during the Napoleonic wars. Take the Battle of Talavera for instance, when the Spanish were spooked by their own rifles and fled the field! Were would we be today without such noble acts!

  3. I´ll answer you Charlie and will prove you a fool and an ignorant in international affairs. Beginning with the Falklands war, The USA gave political backing to Britain and USA satellites gave information to the RN about the Argentine movements. This has been admitted by both. France for her part stopped its supply of Excocet missiles to Argentina. Miterrand phoned Thatcher to offer his solidarity. She admits this in her memoirs and yes a nuclear attack was contemplated on Buenos Airesif the war went badly. Many children would have been killed because of your stupid arrogance. Britain went to war only when she had all the garantees.

    Regarding Hong-Kong, answer me this: according to you Britain didn´t speak of self-determination for the population since it was never contemplated, why does so with Gibraltar and the Falkllands when self-determination is not recognized for these territories either? You will have serious problems with this question.

    Next Ceuta and Melilla. Morocco has never taken its claim to the UN. Why? Simply because she cannot present a Moroccan-Spanish treaty dealing with it. Spain has the Utrech Treaty and its famous X article.

    Finally, The Napoleonic Wars. Let me remind you of the Corunna withdrawal. The French made you run very fast and the English landed at Porthsmouth totally defeated. Without the backing of the Spanish guerrillas Wellington would have been utterly defeated. He was no match for Napoleon anyway.This is also accepted by experts. In fact England has historically benefitted enormously by the fact that she has never been alone in her wars.

    I suggest next time you answer me you don´t ridicule yourself. Allow me a bit of showing-off: I wish all the Spanish were like me because we´d put you Britons in your place.

    • Thank you Spaniard, for returning to flog a six month dead horse.

      I´ll answer you Charlie and will prove you a fool and an ignorant in international affairs. Beginning with the Falklands war, The USA gave political backing to Britain and USA satellites gave information to the RN about the Argentine movements. This has been admitted by both.

      From this I am to gather that you were not alive at the time, nor do you read books, perhaps preferring to frequent internet forums were opinions are used in place of facts?

      Firstly, the US did not give political backing to Britain. Indeed it was very much a bone of contention with the British, as despite the US and Britain supposedly being firm allies, the US did not immediately jump to our aid and support. In fact the US very much tried to remain neutral, much to British annoyance. Alexander Haig, then Secretary of State for the US, flew back and forth trying to get a peace deal. I am sure that the Americans would have preferred it if Britain would have simply shrugged her shoulders and let the Argies have the Island.

      Haig proposed that all troops withdraw, an interim Government be set up and some kind of settlement reached. Kind of like the police catching the burglar stealing your possessions and then sitting you both down to discuss some kind of compromise of ownership. Needless to say, Britain didn’t like that one bit.

      Britain obtained support from the UN, from the EEC and then finally at the end, from the US. US support was only gained on the 30th of April, the Task Force for retaking the Falklands left on April 1st. Britain was not relying on US support or backing, and fully intended to retake the Islands regardless.

      As for the satellite data, you have either mis-read or misheard. The US did not give Britain satellite imagery, they gave them satellite bandwidth for communications, they are not the same thing.

      She admits this in her memoirs and yes a nuclear attack was contemplated on Buenos Aires if the war went badly.

      Firstly it was in President Mitterand’s memoirs that this was mentioned, not Thatchers and secondly it was merely political hyperbole. Britain did send nuclear armed ships and submarines to the Falklands, but for expedience, not for war. It takes a hell of a long time, due to all the various protocols and safety measures to unload nuclear ordinance, Britain didn’t have the time to unload them and so sent them as they were. They were never to be used, although I am sure that it was mentioned in regards to military targets, but to bomb a city of 10 million people? That’s insane and you know it. Even had the top brass been all for it, politically it could never happen. No nation other than the US has ever used nuclear weapons on anyone else, and no one wants to be the second nation to use them.

      But the top brass were not all for it. Clearly you’ve just been listening to tittle tattle on internet forums, Britain would rather have lost, then used nuclear weapons.

      Britain went to war only when she had all the garantees.

      As I said, complete rubbish. The Task Force left before Britain had the support.

      Regarding Hong-Kong, answer me this: according to you Britain didn´t speak of self-determination for the population since it was never contemplated, why does so with Gibraltar and the Falklands when self-determination is not recognized for these territories either? You will have serious problems with this question.

      Self determination is recognised, both have had referendums and both have decided to remain part of Britain and both do have their own Governments. You should remember however that Hong Kong was part of China and populated,  it became part of Britain and then returned to China. No one was living on Gibraltar or the Falklands before the British settled on them, it is not the same.

      Morocco has never taken its claim to the UN. Why?

      Because it is pointless. Spain is stubborn in this area. Regardless of the treaties on Gibraltar and Article X clearing stating that Spain has ceded Gibraltar to Britain, they ignore it and persist with insisting that it is Spanish.

      Article X:

      The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.

      Seems pretty clear cut to me.

      Finally, The Napoleonic Wars. Let me remind you of the Corunna withdrawal.

      Ah yes, another time when Britain has had to help the Europeans overcome a power mad diminutive dictator. Britain had sent a force to aid the Spanish, but surprise surprise, by the time that Moore arrived the Spanish had given up. So rather than comprising an allied force again France, it ended up Britain being the only force against France; and Moore, outnumbered and out manoeuvred, decided to retreat and fight another day.

      In the end the battle was merely to cover the retreat of the British, it did with the loss of only 900 men, not bad from an army of 25,000 trying to get onto ships and leave. Incidentally, I am not sure whether you are aware, but the British did come back and liberate your country for you.

      On a serious note it is worth mentioning that like at Dunkirk (where it was the French), it was the Spanish that held on at the last to allow the British to get away.

      Without the backing of the Spanish guerrillas Wellington would have been utterly defeated.

      Erm, right. The Guerillas were extremely useful and important, but let’s be clear here, they did not win the war, they were not an army. The actual Spanish army did the fighting albeit ineffectively. Now if the Spanish army had had backbone and tenacity of the Guerillas, well then you wouldn’t have needed Britain.

      I think I should point out that Wellington won in spite of the Spanish, who rarely turned up on time, rarely delivered the food they had promised their ‘allies’ and rarely contributed anything of substance in the liberation of their nation.

      He was no match for Napoleon anyway.This is also accepted by experts. In fact England has historically benefitted enormously by the fact that she has never been alone in her wars.

      While I agree that Napolean may have been the better general, it was in the end Napolean that lost so I think that we can safely say that Wellington was a match for him.

      As for the benefit of allies, as I have just said some allies were less beneficial than others. I should also point out that whilst Britain was liberating Spain, it was also fighting the Americans in Canada, alone. Also the Falklands was fought by Britain alone. World War II pretty much alone after Dunkirk and before Operation Barbarossa and against the Japanese pre Pearl Harbour. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, was done by Britain alone. The seven years war against France…there are many more.

      Britain had the largest Empire this world has ever seen, again achieved alone.

      I suggest next time you answer me you don’t ridicule yourself. Allow me a bit of showing-off: I wish all the Spanish were like me because we´d put you Britons in your place.

      In all seriousness there is nothing wrong with being proud of your country and these ‘my country is better than your country arguments’ are in the main, pointless. All this Spanish anger about a rock is missing the point. At the end of the day Britain doesn’t even care about it, it is the people that are important. As long as the people there consider themselves British, and wish to remain British, Britain will fight to the death for them.

      Why doesn’t Spain care that the people living there don’t want to be part of Spain? That is why Spain, like the Argentinians, will never be able to take it back, we protect our own.

  4. Thank you, Charlie, for giving me another opportunity to beat you.

    I´ve read many books about both Gibraltar and the Falklands cases I can give you a title as an example “Rock of contention” by C. Hills. You say Gib was no populated when Rooke took it, that it was deserted. Your exact words are “no one was living on Gib or the FI before the British settled on them”. You only succeed in making me laugh. Do you want to make me believe he and his troops landed on the moon or something like that? The population of Gib fled and their descendants, the true Gibraltarians, live now in places like La Linea, Barbate and Los Barrios or what we call in Spanish “Campo de Gibraltar”. In fact, Britain not only robbed Spain of Gibraltar, she also robbed the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI of it, under whose name it was captured. You see, you´re a bunch of contradictions.
    Who, apart from you, says self-determination is recognised? I bet you to show me the document, the UT, the UN resolutions, the Lisbon Declaration, the Brussels process or the Cordoba agreements exact paragraph that speaks of it. You just make it all up. You forgot to mention, intentionally, of course, the last paragraph of the UT X article. Here you have it:
    “And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate there from the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others”. Listen: “The Crown of Spain and before any others”. Understand? This rules out self-determination for Gib.

    Look, the only burglars in both Gib and the FI are you, the English. The UN acknowledges this when calling on the UK to decolonise these colonies according to the principle of “territorial integrity” that applies to both Spain and Argentina (Resolution 2353, 1967). You will assure the UN has no say, but this cannot deny that Spain achieved a great diplomatic victory over Britain, both moral and political.

    Hong-Kong only gave further evidence of what I´m saying and was, in a particular way, another great Spanish victory in the sense it confirmed Spain´s point of view, namely, that it forces the UK to abide by international treaties and not unilateral decisions. It was the “New territories” that were on lease for 99 years and not the island of f Hong-Kong itself, which was ceded for ever to Britain, although she gave up everything in 1997. If If Hong-Kong was not given self-determination because The Nanking Treaty didn´t allow it in 1842, as you also admit, neither can Gib. The UT is also clear in this respect. As I assumed, you couldn´t answer this question. I know Gibraltarians don´t like to be questioned about this either because, like you, they are in great difficulties.

    And carrying on with HK, why didn´t The UK hold a referendum there? How it´s possible for Britain to be so vitally interested in knowing what 30.000 gibraltarians think and not wanting to know the opinion of seven million people in HK? You´ll answer treaties don´t recognise it, but the same applies to Gib. You are totally routed. If Spain and Britain went to war over the Rock I can assure you would find us a hard nut to crack and you then would bomb Seville or Valencia, for instance. You know, that´s how cowards behave when they´re losing a fight. For my part, I would die happy if before I could see you kicked out of the Rock.
    I´ll prove you wrong again when you say that it was Britain who defeated Napoleon in “the Peninsular War”, as you call it. You say we could not defend ourselves, literally “but the British did come back and liberate you country for you”. Well, thank you for the favour. Spain lost one million people in the war out of a total population of about ten million. She lost 10% of her population. You´ll answer saying that mere numbers alone don´t have to demonstrate anything, that many Spaniards died of famine, disease or were simply shot by the French. That was the case on many occasions, certainly. But the same can be said of the Coventry and other bombings in England and you still claim to have won the II WW, alone, of course, because your soldiers did so. France had up to 400.000 soldiers here in Spain and Wellington up to 65.000. That means that war-machines red coats would have to have killed the French on a 1-6 proportion. It was the Spanish who won the war and who helped the British and not the other way round. This is shown by the Saragossa and Gerona great sieges in 1808-9, by the popular rising in Madrid in1808, by the battle of Bailen in1808, the first defeat of a French army in Europe and in Spain at that, by the continuous action of the Guerrillas, by the daily effort of common Spanish people in six years of war, many of them shot for refusing to collaborate with the French. All these people died in combat. Napoleon himself recognised it on S. Helena when he referred to the war as “the Spanish ulcer”, and he meant the Spanish, not the British. The Spanish painter Goya gives a realistic account of all this in his paintings and drawings. The only British to be displayed there is Wellington himself, the rest are all Spanish. Why don´t you have a look at them? One of your fellow country men, Liddell Hart admits all this also in his “The strategy of indirect approach”. You see, you have to be give proof if you want to be taken seriously. Following your argument, it was the Dutch who stopped King Philip II of Spain in the Low Countries and therefore it was them who saved England from invasion. You alone would have been incapable. What you say of others can be said of you as well. By the way, do you know King William III invaded your country (1688) in a way very similar to one tried by the Spanish one hundred years earlier. He was a great general and had the huge luck of sailing from just “the other side of the Channel”. We were not that lucky.
    My answer is already very long so I´ll give you the real facts of the FI War another day, shouldn´t I consider it a waste of time.

    EDIT: I don’t know why you added your points three times, it certainly doesn’t make them any more accurate nor weighty.

    • As I said, these things tend to slip into silly, my country is better than yours arguments, so here we go.

      You see, you’re a bunch of contradictions.

      This from the man that talks about UN resolutions on de-colonising but then says that he wants Spain to re-colonise other parts of the world. Those days are long gone.

      As for Gibraltar, it was uninhabited when the British took control of it, the people living there fled like whipped dogs, they certainly didn’t want to stay and fight for it, a habit that persisted for quite a while with the Spanish.

      As for ‘self-determination’, Gibraltar is a self governing territory, it has its own parliament and currency. Gibraltar wishes to remain a British territory and is unlikely to ever be made completely independent, they don’t want to be. Besides, Article X does not preclude independence, it prevents Britain giving it to anyone else, that isn’t the same.

      Spain’s claim over Gibraltar is just silly, and a little hypocritical considering their own mad claims on other rocks, with little or no justification. Frankly it is like the Cornish and the Welsh claiming England in the name of the ancient Britons, the British claiming back the 13 colonies (or if they worked on Argie logic, all of the USA) or the Tunisians claiming back Spain in the name of Carthage. You lost it fair and square, stop crying like a baby and move on.

      It is also a little ironic you banging on about self determination, when I am sure you’re dead against giving it to the Basques.

      As for your UN articles, you neglect to mention that the forced removal and forced repatriation of populations fall into the genocide category, which is precisely what Spain intends to do, so it is unlikely that Spain would have the UN on its side for long, if at all. As Israel and Iraq have proven, UN articles are not worth the paper that they are extensively printed on, and are really just expensive toilet roll.

      …but this cannot deny that Spain achieved a great diplomatic victory over Britain, both moral and political.

      Only in your own mind, the rest of the world laugh at Spain and its pathetic claims that it cannot enforce.

      If Spain and Britain went to war over the Rock I can assure you would find us a hard nut to crack

      Ha Ha, I doubt that. Militarily Spain is only ever tough against native ‘savage’ populations that they can massacre, rob, rape and pillage. The last time that anyone feared Spain was in 1588, and the English alone demonstrated what sailing was all about. Spain then managed to loose 20,000 men in choppy conditions around Britain. The same conditions that Britons had been sailing in for centuries before and since.

      and you then would bomb Seville or Valencia, for instance.

      That is what happens in war Franco, people get bombed. It is no use calling for war and then crying when someone gets hurt. If you are once again implying that Britain would use nuclear weapons, then you are wrong. We wouldn’t risk it. The fallout might contaminant Gibraltar and that rock is worth a thousand Seville’s and Valencia’s.

      You know, that´s how cowards behave when they´re losing a fight.

      Yes, I am sure that is what the Inca’s thought when you began using cannon and muskets on them, but that is what happens when backwards peoples are bettered.

      I´ll prove you wrong again when you say that it was Britain who defeated Napoleon in “the Peninsular War”,

      The Spanish were there, but that is pretty much it. Had Britain not returned are you seriously saying that the Spanish would have kicked out Napoleon themselves? What next, the French were just about to kick out Hitler before D-Day?

      How many Spanish were at Waterloo? Precisely, the selfish arrogance of the Spanish, the French were out of their country, war over. Thanks for the help. How many times has Spain come to the aid of Britain in a war, or any nation – never. You sat out WWII after fighting a war against an equally inept and pitiful army, yourselves.

      But the same can be said of the Coventry and other bombings in England and you still claim to have won the II WW, alone, of course, because your soldiers did so.

      I am not sure what your point is here, lots of people died in WWII, but few of them were Spanish. Britain did not win WWII alone, but had we been alone, we’d have still won. It was Hitler suing for peace in Autumn 1940, not Britain. We don’t bend like reeds in the wind, unlike certain Iberian nations bordering Portugal.

      It was the Spanish who won the war and who helped the British and not the other way round.

      Ha ha, yeah right. The British got more help from the Russians. Did you really think that the Spanish were really just about the kick the French out of Spain before Wellington invaded? You had four years, plenty of time and yet all you did was soak up French bullets and bayonets.

      As for Bailen, that was only the first defeat because Napolean’s armies had yet to meet the British. And I think he was referring to the food when he spoke of the Spanish ulcer.

      The Spanish painter Goya gives a realistic account of all this in his paintings and drawings.

      Goya, the Royal painter, who was commissioned after the war, painting about a Spanish only victory? You don’t see the element of bias there? Those paintings were nothing more than propaganda and the fact that you believe them wholeheartedly further demonstrates your ignorance.

      By the way, do you know King William III invaded your country (1688) in a way very similar to one tried by the Spanish one hundred years earlier. He was a great general and had the huge luck of sailing from just “the other side of the Channel”. We were not that lucky.

      It was the Spanish intention to sail from virtually the same place, Flanders. But England didn’t wait for you to be ready, that’s not bad luck, that was just poor planning on the part of the Spanish.

    • Look, the only burglars in both Gib and the FI are you, the English.

      Right. Just like you stole the Canary Islands from their inhabitants, are there any plans to give them back? You took them by force over many, many years, it is a shame you didn’t get the indigenous peoples there to sign some sort of treaty that they could try and renege on.

      Not to mention the cities in Morocco that were taken by force. Why is it that Spain doesn’t have to hand these back, but Britain does? Hypocrisy!

      As for Hong Kong, they aren’t the same. Britain honours its treaties, unlike the Spanish who whinge and whine about ones that they have signed and do their utmost to get out of them. Yes, it was the New Territories that were on the 99 year lease, but they made up the vast majority of what is Hong Kong, being ten times larger than Hong Kong Island. Britain could well have hung onto the island, but what would have been the point? Just look how difficult the Spanish have made holding onto Gibraltar, Britain did not want more territorial waters problems, blockades, and silly little tantrums. Britain has turned Hong Kong into one of the world’s foremost financial centres, what was the point of holding onto a small part of it for posterity and breaking it up?

      Britain ensured an autonomy for Hong Kong not enjoyed by the Spanish territories, despite knowing that according to the treaties, that was more than they could ask for.

      The book you mentioned was written by George Hills, and I am aware of it. Perhaps you are not aware that Hills was born in a former Spanish colony (Mexico) and of a Spanish mother (his elder sisters was named Juanita). He also lived in Argentina for a time with his wife and became friendly with the Perons. He also spent much of his last 25 years living in Spain. Hills was an Englishman by name, but a Spaniard by nature.

      As for the Falklands, there’s nothing that you can say that will change the facts. The Spanish abandoned it and at best they could only claim half of the Islands, whatever agreement happened between Argentina and Spain had nothing to do with Britain. But this isn’t about ownerships, claims and treaties, this is just about Spanish pride and arrogance. The Argentinians also claim South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands, although they had no prior claim on them till the 1920s and 30s, clearly believing that as they were nearby, they must own them! They are almost 1500 miles away from Argentina, about the same distance as the Canary Islands are from Spain and Gibraltar from Britain.

      As I have said before it is the people that live there that count, not any past claims. If the people decided that they wished to become part of Argentina, Britain wouldn’t have a leg to stand on and would have to grant it. The same with Gibraltar. Democracy always trumps international treaties, except in Spain.

  5. I didn´t intend to repeat my last answer three times. It must have been some mistake I made when pasting my Word document message.
    Your questions are too many so I´ll answer some of them only.
    I´ll begin with Goya. He was not biased as you make me to believe and you don´t understand neither him nor his paintings. The same happened to Wellington himself, who complained to the Spanish painter about his portrait in a very unkind way and was very close to being shot by Goya. This is true, I´m no kidding. As I say, Goya wasn´t interested in nationalist, heroic or propaganda painting. He denounced cruelty, hate, violence, torture and oppression. His drawings loathe the behaviour of the French with the Spanish as they do with the behaviour of the Spanish with the French, paying them in kind. I repeat it, have a look at them and read the titles of the drawings at the bottom.
    You mentioned the Canary Islands and the Basque country. I remind you that both relate to Spanish Home Policy and not Spanish Foreign Policy. Gib relates to both Spanish and British Foreign Policy, as the FI relate to both Argentine and British Foreign Policy. You mix things up, as usual. I could answer that King Edward I “The hammer of the Scots” smashed the Welsh and the Scots. Why don´t you give them independence? And to the Ulster as well.
    As for the FI, the British abandoned them in 1774, following a treaty with Spain. When Argentina became independent, the FI were annexed to her. They were Argentine territory. Of course, you will say that your country invaded them because no one was living there, that they were sheep-ridden islands, that these sheep needed someone to feed them or some other ridiculous argument. You implied this also with Gib, but the castle was on the Rock in 1704 as is still there. It was built by the Moors and the Spanish occupied it before the British attived.
    And regarding the Rock again, just in case you´re interested here you have another title on Gib I have at home: “Britain, Spain and Gibraltar: the eternal triangle”, by D. S. Morris, published in Rouledge.
    In my last message I bet you to show me the paragraph recognising self-determination for the population. I knew you wouldn´t because there is none. Spains beats England again as on so many occasions. Cartagena 1741, for instance. The British fled like hares from the Spanish bayonets. You want another one? The battle of Zutphen in 1586 in the Low Countries in which the English poet Sir Philip Sydeney died pronouncing those famous verses “Thy need is greater than mine”. I repeat with him “Thy ignorance is greater than mine”.
    I know what war is about : you hurt and kill others, others hurt and kill you. So far so good. The problem arises when a country like yours decides to nuke another one, Argentina, that cannot nuke you. Unless I´m much wrong, that is cowardice because you´re suppossed to allow the other country to nuke you as well.
    “Britain honors it´s treaties”, you affirm literally. So, give Gib back to us, you pirates!

    • Well Franco, you’re really pulling out the big guns now eh?

      Spains beats England again as on so many occasions. Cartagena 1741, for instance.

      I have to admit Franco, I had to look that one up, twice as I didn’t believe that Britain could be bested by a bunch of monkeys in shiny uniforms and flowery hats, but they were – once. It was part of the War of Jenkin’s Ear, where you Spanish pirates had sadistically cut off some poor fellow named Jenkin’s ear (you never answered to that heinous crime, pirates!), which I had heard of.

      That battle is pretty much forgotten here as it was one defeat (admittedly a big one), amongst many, many victories, culminating of course in you permanently giving us Gibraltar. But I guess it was a big deal to you, kind of like San Marino celebrating their goal against England, despite eventually losing 7-1.

      The only other one you could come up with was the Battle of Zutphen in 1586. Firstly, I said the Spanish hadn’t been feared SINCE 1588, and you chose a battle BEFORE that date. Secondly that was a battle between the Netherlands and Spain, the Dutch being aided by some Englishmen, it isn’t really the same.

      “Britain honors it´s treaties”, you affirm literally. So, give Gib back to us, you pirates!

      On what grounds you buffoon? The treaty gave Gibraltar to Britain permanently, as in forever; unless we sold it or gave it to another power. Have we? No. So why, other than childish petulance, do you think that Gibraltar is yours?

      The problem arises when a country like yours decides to nuke another one, Argentina, that cannot nuke you.

      Once again you simpleton, you are pedalling ridiculous lies and propaganda, even though I have proven your assertion false, you still persist in making it. Britain did not nuke Argentina, nor did we ever intend to. You’re an idiot for even thinking it. Don’t you think that Chile, are allies in that war, might have been a little put out by nuclear fall out landing on their farms afterwards? What about the US, I don’t think that they would have been too happy about us dropping nukes in their backyard.

      The very idea that Britain, who didn’t even bomb a single Argentine town, let alone city, conventionally during the war, would drop a nuclear bomb on one is fanciful to say the least. IF and it is a big IF knowing the French (he had to say something to explain why he’d sold the missiles and then given away the codes rendering them useless, if he wished to retain a post war arms industry), Thatcher did say that, it was to get the Exocet codes, and it worked, she did.

      In my last message I bet you to show me the paragraph recognising self-determination for the population. I knew you wouldn´t because there is none.

      What the hell are you blathering about you ignoramus? Gibraltar has its own Government and currency! Take a look at its website you ass! The winner of Miss World was from Gibraltar and won it for….Gibraltar, not Britain!

      As for the FI, the British abandoned them in 1774, following a treaty with Spain. When Argentina became independent, the FI were annexed to her.

      Wrong Franco and quite honestly, I am starting to think that you are making it up. The British left the Falklands in 1776, and left a plaque stating their ownership, and that they’d be back. Before you say that was relinquishing their claim, Spain did the same thing in 1811. At no point was there a treaty with Spain over the Islands where Britain relinquished its claim. Spain may very well have ceded its share of the Islands to Argentina, but that had nothing to do with Britain. The British returned in 1833.

      It was only in the past 100 years that Argentina has claimed the Islands totally, and also claimed the Sandwich Islands and South Georgia, as if by waiting a while everyone would forget that they had no real claim, no doubt a trick learnt from the Spanish.

      You mentioned the Canary Islands and the Basque country. I remind you that both relate to Spanish Home Policy and not Spanish Foreign Policy.

      In what way are the Canary Islands counted as Home Policy? They were independent nations, with their own kings until the Spanish conquered them. When will their sovereignty be returned?

      I could answer that King Edward I “The hammer of the Scots” smashed the Welsh and the Scots. Why don´t you give them independence? And to the Ulster as well.

      Once again displaying your ignorance, they all joined the Union willingly, in 1701 for Scotland (we shared the same Monarch by that point anyway), and 1801 for Ireland. Great Britain, is named after the Celtic Britons, from which the Irish, Welsh and Scots are descended, not the English, if anyone should be independent from it, it is England.

      All three, Wales, Ulster and Scotland can vote at any time to become fully independent (all have their own Parliaments, and Scotland has its own legal system), Scotland intends to have a referendum on it shortly. None of them will vote for independence. They all rely too much on English tax payers money. Incidentally, the English do not have their own parliament, and therefore cannot vote for independence.

      As for Goya, he painted for whomever was in charge at the time, so his work cannot really be used as an accurate historical record of the war. You implied that Goya’s works showed that Spain had liberated themselves and that Britain had played a minor part, but that isn’t the case, either in his works, or in reality.

      Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

  6. You bloody fool! You don´t even know the history of your own country. Scotland joined the Union in 1707 and not 1701, under Queen Anne (1702-14). If you don´t know this, how can you stand up to me with Gib or the FI. What about the strip of land on which Gib Airport now stands, for example? Prove that it belongs to either the colony or the UK. You could not give the paragraph I asked you and will not prove this either. You only managed to fool yourself again.
    If the Canary Islands, Catalonia, The Basque Country, Galicia and any other part of Spain wanted to became independent of Madrid, what does it have to do with Gib, English clown? Gib relates to Spain´s Foreign policy, that is, her political relations with another state and “Nationalism” relates to domestic affairs. You cannot tell the difference between a camel and a horse, you believe they´re the same thing, you are a twat.
    Spain conquered the Canary Islands, certainly, are you to blame Portugal for conquering the Azores then? These conquests belong to the historical process of national formation. England conquered or took, as you prefer, the Channel Islands. And so what? France doesn´t claim them as we claim Gib. Spain claims it, it´s ours, we have proof of it.
    As for the FI, Miterrand admitted Thatcher would have nuked Argentina if he hadn´t given the Exocets codes to her. Why should I believe you and not Miterrand? Britain may just be trying to clear her image. Give proof of what you say and stop braying like a silly ass!
    I can give you a date after 1588: 1595 when the Spanish did land in Engalnd and sacked Penzance, in Cornwall.
    And Goya again. I thought I had proven he was not interested in politics, so as to say, that he denounced the war itself but I see you didn´t understand, you cannot understand a thing, you are a dope as big as the Rock itself.
    “Now go away or I ghall taunt you a second time”. What do you mean? You want to give up the fight? It´s ok with me, provided you tell me so, otherwise I´ll carry on kicking your ass until I get tired of it. You put this blog on the web, you openly called us, the Spanish, hypocrites with Gib, so you´re suppossed to admit other´s opinions, whether you like them or not. I don´t care a jot about you personally: I just want to ridicule you and your silly ideas concerning Gib in public. Someone else might be interested.
    Finally, my real name is not Franco. General Franco died in 1975. You also ignore this and that Spain is now a democracy, mooncalf. By the way, he put the Rock under lock and key, as I think it should have continued. And you, are you simply Charlie or Charlie Champ?

    • You bloody fool! You don´t even know the history of your own country. Scotland joined the Union in 1707 and not 1701, under Queen Anne (1702-14). If you don´t know this, how can you stand up to me with Gib or the FI.

      Well done Franco, you spotted a typo, I am starting to find this debate a tad bit tiresome and repetitive, so expect more. Scotland isn’t my country.

      Spain claims it, it´s ours, we have proof of it.

      You only have proof of your own ignorance.

      These conquests belong to the historical process of national formation.

      Precisely. Thanks for Gibraltar Franco, it’s now part of the UK.

      As for the FI, Miterrand admitted Thatcher would have nuked Argentina if he hadn´t given the Exocets codes to her.

      So Mitterand knew precisely what Thatcher would have done then? I have already explained why he would have exaggerated, no one would have bought weapons from the French if they thought that the French would hand them over to their enemies at the slightest threat. Even IF Thatcher had said that, it was a political bluff.

      But I am sure that if Argentina or Spain had nuclear weapons, we’d have seen mushrooms over the Falklands and Gibraltar years ago.

      Why should I believe you and not Miterrand? Britain may just be trying to clear her image. Give proof of what you say and stop braying like a silly ass!

      The proof is in the fact that nuclear weapons were not used, you are talking as if they were. I already linked your ignorant ass to a news article about precisely that. In which the head of the navy at the time said:

      “We did not contemplate a nuclear attack and did not make any even potentially preparatory move for such action.”

      But you think that the French President knew more about the British strategy than the British did? As you can see in that report, even the mere mention that such a strategy was proposed had the opposition pressing for an urgent enquiry, what do you think would have happened if they had? As I said political suicide, we are, after all, a democracy, not Franco’s dictatorship.

      The Cornwall incident was merely a raid, not a war nor even a battle, and the Cornish barely count as English, being descended from the ancient Britons.

      And Goya again. I thought I had proven he was not interested in politics,

      Mere coincidence then that he worked at the Royal Court and produced paintings for three (at least) different Spanish governments during the war?

      You said:

      The Spanish painter Goya gives a realistic account of all this in his paintings and drawings. The only British to be displayed there is Wellington himself, the rest are all Spanish.

      Inferring that it was the Spanish only that defeated the French, and that Goya’s paintings were in some way an accurate, historical account, despite being painted later and that because he only painted Wellington, only Wellington was there! Yet you call me a dope?

      “Now go away or I ghall [sic] taunt you a second time”. What do you mean?

      It was humour, admittedly it is French based humour, but to be honest there is little funny about the Spanish, except perhaps their uniforms and marching during the Peninsula War.

      otherwise I´ll carry on kicking your ass until I get tired of it.

      Kicking my ass? Listen Franco, keeping repeating yourself over and over is not winning an argument, it just devalues your argument.

      Once more:

      Article X:

      The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.

      You have yet to demonstrate this marvellous get out clause that means if you stamp your feet and whine hard enough, you get Gibraltar back. You may have a point about the airport, but the problem with Spain is that it is like the boy who cried wolf, you claim everything so everyone just stopped listening years ago. And let’s be honest, other than whine and complain, there is nothing that you can do about it.

      the Spanish, hypocrites with Gib

      You are. What is yours is yours whether you won it, stole it or conquered it; yet whatever you lost it also yours, just because you say so. Hypocrites.

      I just want to ridicule you and your silly ideas concerning Gib in public. Someone else might be interested.

      I doubt that Franco, the only people interested in Gibraltar and the Falklands are the people that live there and the Spanish and Argies. People in Britain are more annoyed with you stealing our fishing waters.

      Finally, my real name is not Franco.

      Sorry, Manuel.

      By the way, he put the Rock under lock and key, as I think it should have continued.

      Franco was all bluster and no trousers, he couldn’t even take Gibraltar during WWII. Your democratic Government had the right idea Manuel, the Gibraltarians would never agree to be part of a nation that holds them to ransom. But is going to take more than that to persuade them to become Spaniards instead of Britons.

    • so you´re suppossed to admit other´s opinions, whether you like them or not.

      Just for the record, I don’t HAVE to admit the opinions of others at all, I choose to.

      I could easily ban anyone with a differing opinion to me from my blog, as many, many other bloggers do. But I don’t.

  7. But so far I´ve been making a good job, you say the people of Cornwall are not English because they come from the old britons. Well done, you Charlie Champ. The whole of England came from them. Britannia (England) is the latin name for the land of the Britons. And you give history lessons!

    • Er, not quite Manuel. England is not Britannia, Britannia is the British Isles, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland. The Latin word for England is Anglii.

      England is named after the Angles, it literally means Land of the Angles, hence the French name for England being Angleterre, and the Spanish Inglaterra. The Angles were a Germanic tribe, who, along with the Jutes and the Saxons settled in and eventually conquered what is now England, driving the Celtic Britons into Wales and Cornwall, hence my comment.

      I think that you are getting confused with the terms England and Britain, they are not synonymous.

      As for history lessons, yes, evidently I just gave you one!

  8. Well, Charlie Champ, let´s have a look at the word “Britannia” and it´s meaning. This is what the “Columbia Companion to British History” says of it: “The name given to the two provinces of the Roman Empire comprising roughly what is now England and Wales, Britannia Inferior and Britannia Superior”. So, yes, for the ancient Romans, “Britannia” included England and Wales only and, yes again, for them England/Wales were synonymous with “Britannia”. Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland were left out.
    When the barbarians invaded it from continental Europe in the V century, Britannia´s inhabitants, the Britons, fled from Cornwall and Devon across the Channel to modern French Bretagne, that takes her name from them. Have a look at the map.
    Another thing is the later evolution of the name “Britannia”, that came to refer to England, Wales and Scotland under a modernised form of the term or “Britain”, as you explain, although confusing people and yourself as usual. But that happened much later.

    • I think that once again Manuel, it is you who are confused. This time you are confusing geographical areas with peoples. You cannot claim that Britannia refers to England and Scotland, as that name is from a time BEFORE the English (or the Angles) or Scots peoples gave their name to the regions.

      What next? That Alexander the Great conquered Turkey, rather than Asia Minor, 1000 years before the Turks settled there?

      I said the Cornish were not really English. You said:

      Cornwall are not English because they come from the old britons. Well done, you Charlie Champ. The whole of England came from them.

      But they didn’t did they Manuel? As you yourself just said in attempting to dig yourself out of your hole, the English are a Germanic race that came much later and are NO relation to the ancient Britons. Just to re-iterate again as it appears you are a tad bit dense – the English are not all related to the ancient Britons, we English just inhabit their old lands, like Gibraltar with the Spanish!

      Manuel said:

      Britannia (England) is the latin name for the land of the Britons.

      And once again Britannia refers to Britain, NOT England, it may encompass the lands that were later settled by the English, but Britannia was a land inhabited by ancient Britons and has nothing to do with the English.

      The distinction is clear. Britain (Britannia) are not other names for England.

      Also some may have fled to Brittany, but many Britons were already there, the vast majority fled into Wales and Cornwall, hence why they both have their own languages neither of which bear any relation to English.

  9. “Britannia” was the ancient name of what would became “England” later. I explained this in my last message. The land that was to become “England” in the V century was known as “Britannia” by the Romans. And yes, it was the same conuntry. When the Anglosaxons invaded Britannia from Denmark and Germany, it became “England”, which means “Land of the Angles”, as you say, “Inglaterra” in Spanish, that´s correct.
    So the Britons, the peoples of Britannia, were there before the Anglosaxons and can be considered as the first real inhabitants of the land. And they were defeated and conquered by the Romans, wheter you like it or not.
    These Britons can be considered as English as you are now, as the Muslims can be considered as Spanish as I am now, except the differences of living in a different time, belonging to a different culture and speaking another language.
    Why? Because the simple reason they were in your island since 1000 B. C. “Britain” and “Great Britain” are modern versions of the name Britannia, they have a political meaning and were used much later for England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and when Ireland became independent, Northern Ireland. In fact, the excat name of your country is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” It seems I have got to explain things to you twice.
    And I don´t forget: GIBRALTAR IS SPANISH!

    • “Britannia” was the ancient name of what would became “England” later.

      Er, wrong again Manuel. As I keep saying they are two different entities, England is 50,000 sq miles, whereas Britain (or Britannia) is 84,000 sq miles. I’ll make it even simpler for you Manuel, Madrid is not Spain, just like Spain is not Madrid.

      England is a distinctly separate country to Britain. They may occupy part of the same space, but they are not the same.

      And they were defeated and conquered by the Romans, wheter you like it or not.

      Why would not like it, or even care? Like the Gauls in Spain for the Spanish, they were there before my people, defeated before my people arrived and eventually kicked out by my people. I am an Anglo Saxon.

      These Britons can be considered as English as you are now

      I am afraid not hombre, they are different, both in terms of language, genetic make-up and culture. These Britons, or Welsh or Cornish are not Anglo Saxon, ergo not English. A Welshman is a Welshman, and can never be an Englishman, and vice versa. Besides which, these ancient Britons, apart from those that escaped to Wales and Cornwall, were wiped out. Genetic experiments in England have shown that none now exist in the population. Like the Picts of Caledonia, the ancient Britons of Britannia were wiped out.

      These Britons can be considered as English as you are now, as the Muslims can be considered as Spanish as I am now, except the differences of living in a different time, belonging to a different culture and speaking another language.

      So you’re saying that the Hittites can be considered Turks, and the Turks Hittites? Well Manuel, wouldn’t that make me also a Roman by your logic? Wouldn’t that have made Alexander the Great a Vinca, rather than a Macedonian? What about you? As you’re from Madrid, you must be a Gaul?

      You are twisting the facts to suit your ignorance, the ancient Britons could be said to be British like me, but not English. England came long afterwards. My comment about the Cornish was tongue in cheek anyway, technically they are considered English, their own language and culture being long dead, but not so much at the time we were discussing. It was your assertion that the English are descended from the ancient Britons that was blatantly wrong:

      Cornwall are not English because they come from the old britons. Well done, you Charlie Champ. The whole of England came from them.

      We can argue semantics for as long as you like, but at the end of the day you are wrong, the English did not come from the ancient Britons.

      And if Gibraltar is Spanish, why is there a British flag flying from the castle? I am guessing it is for the same reason that there is not a Moroccan flag flying from the rest of Spain, you kicked the Moors out, we kicked you out of Gibraltar. Again by your Spanish logic Manuel, the Berbers can claim all of Spain. Just because they lost it doesn’t mean it is no longer theirs, right?

  10. Well, Charlie Champ, I must admit you made me laugh a lot with your last message. I never said the “Anglosaxons” came from the “Britons”. Did I? I never said they were “the same people”. I have checked my messages on this blog and I knew I didn´t . You don´t even read them with attention. I said that the Britons can be considered “English” in the sense that they occupied the land that would be named “England” centuries later. You make things up to suit your ideas. I said: “These Britons can be considered as English as you are now…”. Yes, that is exact. In other words, “Briton” stood for “Englishman” and “Britannia” stood for “England” in the 1st. century. And no, the Britons were not “British”, “Britannia” didn´t include Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland, I told you. It referred to what is now England and Wales alone. Remember the “Columbia Companion to British History”? If you´re trying to delete them from the History of “England”, your country, you are the simpleton of ever. You only fool yourself. The Britons lived in your country since 1.000 BC and for 1.500 years at that, the same number of years your “ancestors” the Anglosaxons arrived in “England”. Maybe it hurts you to be a member of a people conquered by the Romans and want to considerer yourself as a conqueror. I repeat it: you fool yourself. And besides that´s futile because the Anglosaxons like you were conquered by the Vikings during the 9th and 10th centuries and even invaded and conquered by the Normans, who spoke French and who enslaved the Anglosaxons as you know, this time in 1066. Poor fellow.
    Your data are wrong again because the area of “Britain” is no 84.000 sq miles but 94.526 sq miles. Ckeck Wilipedia.
    This is the funnier part: Madrid is indeed Spain! Toledo, Barcelona, Bilbao or Las Palmas also. You forgot the word “only” and should have said Madrid is not Spain “only”! And Spain is also Madrid, though not “only” Madrid. As you expressed it, you tongue-twister yourself all the time with Madrid, Spain and Britain.
    What else? The Union flag is in Gib because Britain robbed Spain of it. That is the reason. As you “Anglosaxons” robbed Argentina of the FI and China of Hong-Kong. I agree, though, that we should have been able to kick you out of it long ago.

    • You make things up to suit your ideas. I said: “These Britons can be considered as English as you are now…”. Yes, that is exact.

      I am afraid not Manuel. You said (and this is a direct quote):

      Cornwall are not English because they come from the old britons. Well done, you Charlie Champ. The whole of England came from them.

      Or to put it more succinctly – The whole of England came from the Britons. Which is clearly wrong, moreover is completely different to what you claimed you’d said exactly. I guess Spaniard’s just don’t know when to stop digging.

      I never said the “Anglosaxons” came from the “Britons”. Did I?

      That is precisely what you said.

      In other words, “Briton” stood for “Englishman” and “Britannia” stood for “England” in the 1st. century.

      Wrong again Manuel! Britain or Britannia are not the same; Albion, Britain, United Kingdom and Britannia are interchangeable with each other, but not with England, nor Scotland, nor Wales, nor Ireland.

      And no, the Britons were not “British”, “Britannia” didn´t include Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland, I told you. It referred to what is now England and Wales alone.

      We could argue this point forever. But according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Britannia is the latin word for Britain:

      Britannia

      /britany/

      • noun the personification of Britain, usually depicted as a helmeted woman with shield and trident.

      — ORIGIN the Latin name for Britain.

      As I said, it depends on your definition of Britain, Britain as in modern day Britain, Britain as in the British Isles as a whole or Britain up until 1922 that included Ireland. But whichever way you turn it, Britain is not just England, nor even just England and Wales, but a collection of different nations.

      Britannia (England) is the latin name for the land of the Britons.

      You see, you are confusing not only Britain and England, but also the Latin for Britain (Britannia) with the the Roman names for Britain (Britannia Superior/Inferior or Albion, Caledonia and Hibernia). Either you’re talking about the Roman provinces, of which England doesn’t feature at all, or you are talking about the Latin name for Britain, you need to make your mind up Manuel. You didn’t say Britannia Inferior or Superior, you said Britannia, i.e. the Latin name for Britain.

      Your data are wrong again because the area of “Britain” is no 84.000 sq miles but 94.526 sq miles. Ckeck Wilipedia.

      I’ve never heard of Wilipedia, but even so you have demonstrated once again that your child like mind is unable to grasp even the simple points of this argument. Britain doesn’t include Northern Ireland! Britain; England, Wales and Scotland is 84,000 sq miles; Great Britain AND Northern Ireland are 94,000 sq miles. If you can’t follow my points, at least try and keep up with your own!

      Maybe it hurts you to be a member of a people conquered by the Romans and want to considerer yourself as a conqueror. I repeat it: you fool yourself.

      I think that it is becoming increasingly clear who the fool is Manuel. The English (Anglo Saxons) were never conquered by the Romans, that was the Britons, who were then wiped out by the Anglo Saxons. It’s not hard to follow you imbecile, the Anglo Saxons came after the Romans had left. Ergo I am not descended from peoples conquered by the Romans. No English people are, save the Cornish.

      We can debate this point for ever if you like, but it won’t make you any more right, or indeed, any less wrong.

      And besides that´s futile because the Anglosaxons like you were conquered by the Vikings during the 9th and 10th centuries and even invaded and conquered by the Normans, who spoke French and who enslaved the Anglosaxons as you know, this time in 1066. Poor fellow.

      Indeed, if that is the extent of your education I do pity you. Much as you may need them, it is not my responsibility to give you history lessons. They say history is written by the victors, maybe that explains it, Spanish history books must be blank from cover to cover.

      The Vikings raided England and although they took over large parts of England early on, they were eventually destroyed. Indeed it was an English army that finally ended the Viking Age, under King Harold at Stamford Bridge. Far from conquering England, they were broken by it and driven out. Much like you drove out the French in the Peninsula War, except the English didn’t need any help to do it.

      The Normans may have adopted the the French language of the area that they conquered in France, but the Normans were also Vikings and not Franks. They only defeated Harold as he’d had to fight the Vikings proper a few weeks before, which he won, then march 300 miles to face the Normans. Unlucky but in the end only about 30,000 Normans settled here, and merely replaced the aristocratic elite. So again, very few English can claim to be descended from the Normans.

      This is the funnier part: Madrid is indeed Spain! Toledo, Barcelona, Bilbao or Las Palmas also. You forgot the word “only” and should have said Madrid is not Spain “only”! And Spain is also Madrid, though not “only” Madrid. As you expressed it, you tongue-twister yourself all the time with Madrid, Spain and Britain.

      Well, if Madrid is Spain, then you really don’t have any claim on Gibraltar or anywhere outside it then you idiot. No ‘only’ required as they are not the same, that is like saying a steering wheel is a car and a car is a steering wheel! A car may contain a steering wheel, but it is not one.

      What else? The Union flag is in Gib because Britain robbed Spain of it.

      Just like you stole the Iberian Peninsula from the Berbers, when are you planning on giving it back? What about Portugal, we both know the only reason that Portugal is independent is because of its alliance with England (another reason the Spanish hate the English). Is Portugal next on your list after Gibraltar?

      As you “Anglosaxons” robbed Argentina of the FI and China of Hong-Kong. I agree, though, that we should have been able to kick you out of it long ago.

      Hong Kong was only on loan, the Falklands and Gibraltar are for keeps. Argentina has no claim on the Falklands, they were not even an independent nation when Britain settled there. As for kicking us out! Ha! Every dog has its day, sadly for you Spain’s was from about 1492 to 1588.

      The best that Spain can hope for is that Britain will no longer need Gibraltar, or the Gibraltarians will want independence. Spain will never get it back.

  11. I know what I´ve said and don´t need you to explain it to me. I´ve checked all I said about “Britanni”a and the “Britons”. All my information is exact from top to bottom.
    First, my exact comment was: “The whole of England came from them. Britannia (England) is the latin name for the land of the Britons”. Both assertions are totally true. My message ended there so explained in the next one that by “Britannia” I was referring to the land to be known as “England” with the arrival of the Anglosaxons in the V century. If you cannot understand don´t blame it on me, mate. And yes, I repeat it yet again, Britannia, the Roman province of Britannia, included modern England and Wales, from the cliffs of Dover in the South to Hadrian´s Wall in the north to the island of Anglesey in Wales in the West. For you to understand: they were the same country.
    You said: “Er, not quite Manuel. England is not Britannia, Britannia is the British Isles, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland. The Latin word for England is Anglii”.
    This is stupid thinking and talking for your part.
    Well, you mix things up like in a wahing machine and the result is nonsense. Britannia was England is the 1st century, 90 AD, for instance, England was Britannia in 500 AD, for instance. The names change but the same country remains. What is easy to understand you make complicated, poor hammerhead.
    The “British Isles” is a geographical concept that comprises two islands, Great Britain and Ireland. Here we cannot speak of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are political concepts, but of Great Britain and Ireland. Understand?
    Your Latin is catastrophic. Anglii isn´t the Latin name for England, that was “Britannia”. How can a neme referring people be used to refer a place or a country? I repeat it, you confuse horses and camels. “Anglii” is the Latin name for “the English people”, “the English” in the VI century. “Anglia” was in Latin what “England” was in Germanic, “Anglii” was in Latin what “the English people” were in Germanic. In fact, the real “Anglii” were the “Angles” that invaded your England with your ancestors the Saxons, being all known as the “Anglosaxons”. These Angles lived in the Baltic and the Latin historian Tacitus gives them the mane “Anglii”. But, I repeat, it was the English of England who in any case should be given the name “Anglii” and not the country.
    According to you I said that the Anglosaxons came from the Britons. Where are the exact words? Show me. Don´t make up things I never said. Another thing is that you cannot interpret my words properly.
    More. I did include “Britannia Inferior” and “Britannia Superior” when I provided the definition of the “Columbia Companion to British History”. Check my messages. What rubbish are you talking, poor fellow?
    The word “Britain” can be used to refer to both the island of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, the political and geographical meanings of the word “Britain”. So, both your area and mine are correct and, yes, politically. Britain includes Northern Ireland, because as I say, Britain can be synonymous with The UK. The Webster´s New Collegiate Dictionary and Wikipedia acknowledge this also, you can check for yourself.
    English is anyone living in England on a permanent basis at any time. That includes the Britons, the Anglosaxons, the Vikings, who invaded and conquered the whole of your island, the Normans and whoever followed. So the Britons were quite “English” in this sense, which is the right one. If you choose to believe these Britons were “another race”, they were “alien” to you, “England as a nation has nothing to do with them” becuse “we arrived later” and garbage of that kind, well then, you´re a lunatic.
    Finally, that “I’ll make it even simpler for you Manuel, Madrid is not Spain, just like Spain is not Madrid”. WHAT? Apart from being the funniest tongue-twister I ever heard, it reveals your sheer ignorance. Where would you locate Madrid, maybe the capital of the FI?

    • Well thanks again Manuel for yet another comment repeating what you have said already and still trying to back track from your initial comment that the English are descended from the ancient Britons.

      Once again you said:

      Manuel said: “Cornwall are not English because they come from the old britons. The whole of England came from them [the Britons, but they didn’t did they Manuel?]. Britannia (England) [England and Britannia are not the same] is the latin name for the land of the Britons”

      What you said is pretty much like me saying you are a Berber Manuel, are you? They used to live there after all, indeed where you are sitting right now was Al-Andalus, so are you really living in Spain, or Al-Andalus?

      For you to understand: they were the same country.

      Again Manuel, they were not. If Britannia included Wales, and England does not, how can they be the same country? You’re talking rubbish. Are Al-Andalus and Spain synonymous?

      Britannia was England is the 1st century, 90 AD, for instance, England was Britannia in 500 AD, for instance. The names change but the same country remains.

      Do you even read what you type? Britannia was just the landmass. England did not exist in any way shape or form until 927AD when the different kingdoms were unified, before that there were many different Kingdoms such as Mercia, Wessex, Sussex, Kent, Northumbria, East Anglia etc. None of them were called England, as that came much later.

      Your Latin is catastrophic. Anglii isn´t the Latin name for England, that was “Britannia”.

      Well done for spotting another typo. I am well aware of the Latin for England, Anglia. Also the name of one of the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms and still a region of England to this day. But let me point out I said “The Latin word for England is Anglii” notice the tense. IS not WAS. I didn’t say that the Romans called it Anglia, how could they, the Angles didn’t settle there until centuries later, I said the Latin word for England IS Anglia. Britannia is the Latin word for Britain.

      English is anyone living in England on a permanent basis at any time.

      Right Manuel, so the Romans were also English? The Moors were also Castilians? What about the Spanish living in Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Penon de Alhucemas and Islas Chafarinas? Are they actually Moroccan? What about the French, they were in Spain for a good four years during the Peninsula War, did they also all become Spanish? You’re raving like a madman now and it is becoming tiresome.

      WHAT? Apart from being the funniest tongue-twister I ever heard, it reveals your sheer ignorance. Where would you locate Madrid, maybe the capital of the FI?

      Wipe the spittle from your chin Manuel and listen for the last time whilst I explain it to you simply: Spain is a country, Madrid is a city. One may be located in the other, but they are not synonymous. One can visit Spain without visiting Madrid (Barcelona is a much nicer place to visit anyway), just like you can visit Britain without ever setting foot in England.

      I’d like to debate this ad infinitum (Latin again for you Pancho, as you seem to have a penchant [bit of French too, almost your home language once!] for it!) but I really can’t be bothered. You have nothing new to add, and I am getting tired of poking holes in your laughable arguments and pathetic attempts to back track out of some of the ridiculous things that you have said.

      You have never once managed to state why Spain should be allowed to get out of a treaty that gave Britain Gibraltar, nor explain how the Falklands are actually Argentinian, when the British settled there first. So I am guessing that you have no answer, just Spanish ignorance and arrogance.