Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "History Tea Time with Lindsay Holiday" channel.

@bernardmcavoy1864 Language is about communication exactly how people choose to express themselves as long as it is understandable is non of yours or anyone elses business. What you consider "vulgar" is every bit as valid as anything you can possibly ever say yourself. Indeed every single word you're using was at some point in time or other considered vulgar or wrong. Simply because languages *change*. It's the nature of language. Indeed language is a exercise in direct democracy where people vote on what words means what through their use. If you have your own preferences you're of course free to choose to talk however you like. But somehow assuming that it's better then someone else, especially if they remain consistent in the rules they apply is just being ignorant of the nature of languages and language history. Not to mention, your behavior was extremely rude. I prefer to not use abbreviations and will request that people abstain from them while talking with me. But that doesn't make those inferior to the l long form of the words we use. It's simply a preference and a request that they are free to disregard if they wish. And I usually phrase such a request as respectfully as I can. We had to fight hard against your kind of language oppression in my country, hence why there's no spoken language standard for my language anymore since all the dialects and sociolects are considered to be of equal value now, respecting the different historical backgrounds of peoples from different areas and social backgrounds in my country, and the different languages that has had a impact on them there. And the media is required by law to have different dialects etc represented here. We have achieved spoken linguistic freedom. There's some rules for our written language, although there's several offically recognized variations of it.
5
@bernardmcavoy1864 "I have not got round to answering this person yet. But I shall. No, I do not have an English degree, because I have no need for one. I am at least a native English-speaker." A) That's a poor excuse. There's plenty of non-native speakers that use "better" English then any native English speaker (better in this context being more "accurate" according to the standards used in England, but like you've probably noticed by now I reject the concept of there being any such thing as "better" English to begin with). B) Non-British English speakers are more important in defining how English is spoken then UK nationals are, and they have been for a while. You can even see traces of this in the English language within Britain right now, with many changes that you're most likely using yourself already being defined outside of Britain and now being considered correct within Britain. C) If you had a English degree (or any other linguistic degree) you'd probably be aware that linguists have stepped away from the prescriptive approach to languages in favour of the descriptive approach. In essence the English language just like all languages known to man is and has always been changing according to the way people choose to use them. There's nothing about English in England in its current state that makes it empirically superior to English in the past or future. And since language change is a exercise in direct democracy in action it's hard to determine what future changes will be made or who will make them. D) English is not defined by the upper classes even if they may have some influence on the language. If it was you'd all be speaking essentially French now instead of only a few French words within a vocabulary that mixes French, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, Greek, Old Norse, Breton and so one and so forth, including some words from essentially every language in the world.
5
@bernardmcavoy1864 For the record Britain no longer have ownership of the English language nor its development. The people of England is such a small percentage of the total English speaking world that the country simply has lost the definition power of the language. There's over a billion English speakers in the world, England has a population of roughly fiftyfive million. Even if we're just talking native speakers of English the people of England still makes up a minority since the total number of native speakers of English is about three hundred and seventy million native English speakers, only about fiftyfive million of those in actual England...
4
@bernardmcavoy1864 "Chicago ghetto". In other words you're suggesting that African-American Venacular English is somehow inferior to your own dialect or accent, whatever that may be? What accent or dialect do you speak anyway? Oxford English? Or something else?
4
They're interesting people. Also, monarchies on average are far more democratic then republics these days.
4
11:50 Haraldsen, not Harldsen. The second "A" is not silent. 12:22 Harald, not "Harold". 13:22 The "e" at the end of "Norge" is not silent.
4
@bernardmcavoy1864 Thank you, I hope that it gave you a new perspective of the nature of the language. Because your initial attitude definitively rubs people the wrong way.
3
@bernardmcavoy1864 Well, given the current server prices I can pretty much gurantee that this site is not hosted in the UK. So, no. This isn't "here" in England. Quite the opposite. You are here on a youtube channel that most likely is hosted in Germany since that's where Google host most of their European stuff...
3
The UKs main issue in my view isn't your monarchy, but your first past the post electoral system. It leads to the same two political parties always ending up with almost all the power, even when most people disagree with them. If anything your monarchy and your house of Lords has actually kept the worst excesses of your politicans in check a little bit... Although neither could prevent them making a mess of things. That said, I agree that your queen definitely was a conservative influence during her reign. And Britain would probably have benefited from a tradition like that of the low countries with monarchs abdicating once they're old.
3
@Dablooner Because that's how Norway works. Our leaders are only first among *equals*. You'll see our prime ministers driving themselves and their kids to daycare (no private chauffeur here), go to the grocery store themselves and cook food for visiting dignitaries in their own kitchen in their own homes. Likewise, our kings/queens etc are down to Earth people representing a people who look down on anyone thinking they're better then others. Yes, in Norway acting as you're better then someone else automatically makes you worse then anyone else. It's a taboo.
2
@dialovesramen Yeah, if people like him ruled people would probably still be using what you can find in the Anglo-Saxon wiki or some such... That or just French, since that was the upper class language for a while...
2
@fernandostagl5541 You're assuming that the way they're speaking is wrong. However if you actually have a look at their speech you'll see that there's strict rules to how African-American Vernacular English is spoken. And it's a result of different language influences. Just like how Scots and English has developed differently despite both decending from the same language due to different linguistic influences.
2
@smeraldyparra888 Excuse me?
2
Ingeborg like other Nordic namrs foes not have a silent "e". The "e" in "Inge" is a separate very much voiced syllable, ay least in some dialects here in Norway. And I'm pretty sure that it is in Sweden too... Suffixes aee important in nordic words. A "e" ending in Norwegian often means the same as "the" does in English.
2
17:03 I'd say they deserve 2 points on the popularity of the royal family. Both Märtha Louise and Mette-Marit are well liked. Yes, there has been criticism, but nothing even approaching anyone actually disliking them. As for the cost to tax payers, you have to remember to correct for local price levels, yes, they're expensive in total dollar amounts compared to other countries. But honestly the whole country is expensive. When you correct for that difference in cost between say us and the Swedes and Danes I think you'll find that they're not nearly as expensive as they might seem. And while they still have some additional costs it's still money well spent on a high rate of diplomatic activity (we'd essentially be paying for that anyway if we had a elected head of state) and on maintaining buildings of historical significance (again a expense we'd probably still have). The costs that remains after those two factors and when correcting for costs of just living in this country is actually fairly low. I agree that they don't qualify for 2 points there, but I'd honestly give them 1 there. Anyway, our royal family is a big part of why we even exist as a independent nation after WW2. During the war they gathered us against the occupying Germans and played a crucial role in our dipolmatic efforts towards the UK and US, our first king was married to a British princess so we had ties there, and with regards to the US, our royal family had just had a state visit to the US prior to the war and had started friendships with the president getting him on our side in a lot of the diplomacy during WW2, without them our merchant navy would probably have ended up being just taken by the Brits, our goverment in exile wouldn't have had the funds it ended up having, the income needed to fight the Germans both at home and abroad. And after the war the Soviets had already occupied a big part of northern Norway, but the Allies negotiated with the Soviets, conceding eastern Europe in return for us getting back our lands. We're definitly less likely to replace our monarchy then the Swedes are. The Danes... Living in Norway I'd like to think that we're less likely to replace our monarchy then they, but honestly, it's probably about equal. But yeah... But back to the Swedes. If they had another monarch like their current king their monarchy would be falling soon. Thankfully their crown-princess is as down to Earth as our own royal family, and the Swedish monarchy will survive her. Oh, and on the whole political roadblocks thing in Norway... We have a system of proportional representation. So it's not enough for one political party against the monarchy to become the biggest in the country. You need enough support to have a whole coalition against the monarchy in order to abolish it. Since there's both monarchist and republican parties on both sides of the political spectrum that's just not going to happen anytime soon. Oh, and also, our king doesn't have de jure veto power he does have de facto veto power since no law are valid without his signature. He has only used this once in 2008. A law had been proposed where the requirement of our king to be a lutheran was suggested removed. He stopped that law.
2
@Prince Talleyrand I might be wrong, but I don't believe he'd be a king if he married her. He'd most likely be a prince consort instead.
1
@iamwolfeia Thank you for bringing that up. I've made a similar response myself prior to seeing this message of yours.
1
@bernardmcavoy1864 There's over a billion speakers, but only about a third of them are native speakers. For the rest it's a second or third language.
1
@bernardmcavoy1864 Your physical body might be. But "here" isn't the same location as your body is. "Here" is most likely in Germany since that's where Google host most of their European stuff. I live in Norway, but in this context we're both in Germany, not England or Norway.
1
@dialovesramen How is a row of numbers "formal"? I'm confused.
1
@dialovesramen Who are you referring to at the moment if I may ask? And what posts?
1
@Beth-mi2hf When her countries way of governing itself impacts me then yes, she does in my view. 22% of Norwegian export is to the UK. Including much of the gas keeping British houses heated and quite a bit of electricity keeping the lights on in the UK. And quite frankly, surprisingly enough, a lot of fish for their famous fish and chips etc. Norway is a part of the EEC despite not being in the EU. Meaning that British disputes with the EU heavily impacts *us*. So no, don't you dare claim that what's going on in the UK is non of my business, it very much is. Also, as a fellow citizen of a monarchy I can also comment on the UKs status as a monarchy for that reason. As for the arguments in favour of a first past the post system, there are *some*, but quite frankly you can achieve most of those goals just as well with a number of other systems by modifying them in certain ways.
1
@doreensika837 Britain has had a very conservative queen for a while. But monarchies as a institution can actually safeguard any part of society, and in the case of the Scandinavian monarchies they definitely do. Their focus is not the rich at all, but the poor, those without a voice, those that suffers. King Charles and others wanted to modernize the British monarchy but Elizabeth kept holding back. I believe that they like the Norwegian monarchy wants to be a conscience for Britain, bringing up issues that affects peoples lives.
1
@Kattawhat I think that a lot of people have mixed feelings about monarchies. It's far better then having a president elected directly by the people due to it being a single member constituency with all the issues that involves. A president picked through a parliamentarian system in a proportional system might not be that bad though, but it still tends to lead to a too politicized person in charge...
1
 @unkiemiloplays901 Depends, having a throne actually seems to lead to a better democracy as they tend to end up as a more or less impartial referee for the politicans.
1
26:26 That's a outright lie. Our royal family didn't set foot in Sweden at all during the war. And they escaped by sea on a British warship. Spending much of the war in the US. 27:02 You're really butchering the last name of our queen. She's named Haraldsen, not Haroldsen or Harldsen or anything like that...
1