#England property tax

[top10estateagentsuk]

Apply for a Repayment of the Non-UK Resident Stamp Duty Land Tax Surcharge in England and Northern Ireland

Check if you can and how to apply for a repayment if you’re a non-residential purchaser of property in England and Northern Ireland.

Who Can Apply

You or your estate agents can apply for a repayment of the surcharge paid on a property if all the purchasers are individuals and have spent 183 days in the UK in any continuous 365-day period:

Starting no more than 364 days before the effective date of the transaction.

Ending no more than 365 days after the effective date of the transaction.

The effective date of the transaction is usually the completion date. You must apply for the repayment within 2 years of the effective date of the transaction.

What Information You’ll Need

To apply for a repayment, you will need the following details:

Bank Account Information: UK bank account and sort code details for the recipient of the payment.

Unique Transaction Reference Number (UTRN): From the Stamp Duty Land Tax return submitted when the property was purchased.

Effective Date of Purchase: Usually the completion date.

SDLT Amount Paid: Including the non-resident surcharge.

Purchase Price: If it’s a freehold property (or other ‘consideration’ if the transaction included goods, works, services, debt release, etc.).

Total Lease Premium: If it’s a leasehold property.

Net Present Value Calculation: Used when the SDLT was calculated if it’s a new lease.

If you’ve already reclaimed the higher rate on additional dwellings, you’ll need the amount of SDLT due after the refund. You may need to ask your solicitor or conveyancer for these details.

If You Are an Agent Acting for the Purchaser

Estate Agents will need a document signed by the purchaser confirming authority to apply for a repayment on their behalf. This letter of authority should specify if the repayment is to be paid into an account other than the purchaser’s and include the relevant account details. You’ll need to upload an image of this signed document with your online application.

How to Apply for a Repayment

Your application requests HMRC to amend the Stamp Duty Land Tax return for the property. You’ll be asked to certify that the amendment is correct.

There are two ways to apply depending on whether you have a Government Gateway user ID and password:

With Government Gateway: Use your user ID and password if you’ve registered for Self Assessment or filed a tax return online.

Without Government Gateway: Apply via email if you do not have a Government Gateway user ID.

Ensure to save your application and return to it later if needed. Only apply by email if you do not have a Government Gateway user ID.

Need Assistance?

If you find the application process challenging or prefer professional assistance, consider contacting the best estate agents in the UK. They can provide expert guidance and help streamline the application process.

[totally-a-sheep]

LUC! it's going to be a controlled fire right??? -@mason-the-bee-dude

Of course! I once held Aziraphale hostage in a perfectly contained ring/wall of Hellfire for an entire week. Which us what we're celebrating today, in fact!

[head-post]

Tax cut temptation: Sunak promises ‘cautious’ cuts ahead of autumn statement

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said his government would turn to tax cuts once inflation falls, speaking ahead of this week’s Budget update when Treasury Secretary Jeremy Hunt was expected to announce how he would boost the stagnant economy.

Rishi Sunak noted on Monday:

Now that inflation is halved and our growth is stronger, meaning revenues are higher, we can begin the next phase and turn our attention to cutting tax.

Sunak said his government had to prioritise reducing the tax burden. He emphasised that he would not repeat the unfunded tax cut plan that his predecessor Liz Truss announced last year, which caused turmoil in bond markets. Sunak said the government would cut taxes gradually and would not do anything that would increase inflation. He added:

You can trust me when I say we can responsibly start to cut taxes.

Read more HERE

[thoughtportal]

A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (and Some Bears)

PublicAffairs, 288 pp., $28.00

But don’t worry—it almost never comes to this. As one park service PSA noted this summer, bears “usually just want to be left alone. Don’t we all?” In other words, if you encounter a black bear, try to look big, back slowly away, and trust in the creature’s inner libertarian. Unless, that is, the bear in question hails from certain wilds of western New Hampshire. Because, as Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling’s new book suggests, that unfortunate animal may have a far more aggressive disposition, and relate to libertarianism first and foremost as a flavor of human cuisine.

Hongoltz-Hetling is an accomplished journalist based in Vermont, a Pulitzer nominee and George Polk Award winner. A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (and Some Bears) sees him traversing rural New England as he reconstructs a remarkable, and remarkably strange, episode in recent history. This is the so-called Free Town Project, a venture wherein a group of libertarian activists attempted to take over a tiny New Hampshire town, Grafton, and transform it into a haven for libertarian ideals—part social experiment, part beacon to the faithful, Galt’s Gulch meets the New Jerusalem. These people had found one another largely over the internet, posting manifestos and engaging in utopian daydreaming on online message boards. While their various platforms and bugbears were inevitably idiosyncratic, certain beliefs united them: that the radical freedom of markets and the marketplace of ideas was an unalloyed good; that “statism” in the form of government interference (above all, taxes) was irredeemably bad. Left alone, they believed, free individuals would thrive and self-regulate, thanks to the sheer force of “logic,” “reason,” and efficiency. For inspirations, they drew upon precedents from fiction (Ayn Rand loomed large) as well as from real life, most notably a series of micro-nation projects ventured in the Pacific and Caribbean during the 1970s and 1980s.

None of those micro-nations, it should be observed, panned out, and things in New Hampshire don’t bode well either—especially when the humans collide with a newly brazen population of bears, themselves just “working to create their own utopia,” property lines and market logic be damned. The resulting narrative is simultaneously hilarious, poignant, and deeply unsettling. Sigmund Freud once described the value of civilization, with all its “discontents,” as a compromise product, the best that can be expected from mitigating human vulnerability to “indifferent nature” on one hand and our vulnerability to one another on the other. Hongoltz-Hetling presents, in microcosm, a case study in how a politics that fetishizes the pursuit of “freedom,” both individual and economic, is in fact a recipe for impoverishment and supercharged vulnerability on both fronts at once. In a United States wracked by virus, mounting climate change, and ruthless corporate pillaging and governmental deregulation, the lessons from one tiny New Hampshire town are stark indeed.

“In a country known for fussy states with streaks of independence,” Hongoltz-Hetling observes, “New Hampshire is among the fussiest and the streakiest.” New Hampshire is, after all, the Live Free or Die state, imposing neither an income nor a sales tax, and boasting, among other things, the highest per capita rate of machine gun ownership. In the case of Grafton, the history of Living Free—so to speak—has deep roots. The town’s Colonial-era settlers started out by ignoring “centuries of traditional Abenaki law by purchasing land from founding father John Hancock and other speculators.” Next, they ran off Royalist law enforcement, come to collect lumber for the king, and soon discovered their most enduring pursuit: the avoidance of taxes. As early as 1777, Grafton’s citizens were asking their government to be spared taxes and, when they were not, just stopped paying them.

Nearly two and a half centuries later, Grafton has become something of a magnet for seekers and quirky types, from adherents of the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon to hippie burnouts and more. Particularly important for the story is one John Babiarz, a software designer with a Krusty the Klown laugh, who decamped from Big-Government-Friendly Connecticut in the 1990s to homestead in New Hampshire with his equally freedom-loving wife, Rosalie. Entering a sylvan world that was, Hongoltz-Hetling writes, “almost as if they had driven through a time warp and into New England’s revolutionary days, when freedom outweighed fealty and trees outnumbered taxes,” the two built a new life for themselves, with John eventually coming to head Grafton’s volunteer fire department (which he describes as a “mutual aid” venture) and running for governor on the libertarian ticket.

Although John’s bids for high office failed, his ambitions remained undimmed, and in 2004 he and Rosalie connected with a small group of libertarian activists. Might not Grafton, with its lack of zoning laws and low levels of civic participation, be the perfect place to create an intentional community based on Logic and Free Market Principles? After all, in a town with fewer than 800 registered voters, and plenty of property for sale, it would not take much for a committed group of transplants to establish a foothold, and then win dominance of municipal governance. And so the Free Town Project began. The libertarians expected to be greeted as liberators, but from the first town meeting, they faced the inconvenient reality that many of Grafton’s presumably freedom-loving citizens saw them as outsiders first, and compatriots second—if at all. Tensions flared further when a little Googling revealed what “freedom” entailed for some of the new colonists. One of the original masterminds of the plan, a certain Larry Pendarvis, had written of his intention to create a space honoring the freedom to “traffic organs, the right to hold duels, and the God-given, underappreciated right to organize so-called bum fights.” He had also bemoaned the persecution of the “victimless crime” that is “consensual cannibalism.” (“Logic is a strange thing,” observes Hongoltz-Hetling.)

While Pendarvis eventually had to take his mail-order Filipina bride business and dreams of municipal takeovers elsewhere (read: Texas), his comrades in the Free Town Project remained undeterred. Soon, they convinced themselves that, evidence and reactions to Pendarvis notwithstanding, the Project must actually enjoy the support of a silent majority of freedom-loving Graftonites. How could it not? This was Freedom, after all. And so the libertarians keep coming, even as Babiarz himself soon came to rue the fact that “the libertarians were operating under vampire rules—the invitation to enter, once offered, could not be rescinded.” The precise numbers are hard to pin down, but ultimately the town’s population of a little more than 1,100 swelled with 200 new residents, overwhelmingly men, with very strong opinions and plenty of guns.

Hongoltz-Hetling profiles many newcomers, all of them larger-than-life, yet quite real. The people who joined the Free Town Project in its first five years were, as he describes, “free radicals”—men with “either too much money or not enough,” with either capital to burn or nothing to lose. There’s John Connell of Massachusetts, who arrived on a mission from God, liquidated his savings, and bought the historic Grafton Center Meetinghouse, transforming it into the “Peaceful Assembly Church,” an endeavor that mixed garish folk art, strange rants from its new pastor (Connell himself), and a quixotic quest to secure tax exemption while refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the IRS to grant it. There’s Adam Franz, a self-described anti-capitalist who set up a tent city to serve as “a planned community of survivalists,” even though no one who joined it had any real bushcraft skills. There’s Richard Angell, an anti-circumcision activist known as “Dick Angel.” And so on. As Hongoltz-Hetling makes clear, libertarianism can indeed have a certain big-tent character, especially when the scene is a new landscape of freedom-lovers making “homes out of yurts and RVs, trailers and tents, geodesic domes and shipping containers.”

If the Libertarian vision of Freedom can take many shapes and sizes, one thing is bedrock: ���Busybodies” and “statists” need to stay out of the way. And so the Free Towners spent years pursuing an aggressive program of governmental takeover and delegitimation, their appetite for litigation matched only by their enthusiasm for cutting public services. They slashed the town’s already tiny yearly budget of $1 million by 30 percent, obliged the town to fight legal test case after test case, and staged absurd, standoffish encounters with the sheriff to rack up YouTube hits. Grafton was a poor town to begin with, but with tax revenue dropping even as its population expanded, things got steadily worse. Potholes multiplied, domestic disputes proliferated, violent crime spiked, and town workers started going without heat. “Despite several promising efforts,” Hongoltz-Hetling dryly notes, “a robust Randian private sector failed to emerge to replace public services.” Instead, Grafton, “a haven for miserable people,” became a town gone “feral.” Enter the bears, stage right.

Black bears, it should be stressed, are generally a pretty chill bunch. The woods of North America are home to some three-quarters of a million of them; on average, there is at most one human fatality from a black bear attack per year, even as bears and humans increasingly come into contact in expanding suburbs and on hiking trails. But tracking headlines on human-bear encounters in New England in his capacity as a regional journalist in the 2000s, Hongoltz-Hetling noticed something distressing: The black bears in Grafton were not like other black bears. Singularly “bold,” they started hanging out in yards and on patios in broad daylight. Most bears avoid loud noises; these casually ignored the efforts of Graftonites to run them off. Chickens and sheep began to disappear at alarming rates. Household pets went missing, too. One Graftonite was playing with her kittens on her lawn when a bear bounded out of the woods, grabbed two of them, and scarfed them down. Soon enough, the bears were hanging out on porches and trying to enter homes.

Combining wry description with evocative bits of scientific fact, Hongoltz-Hetling’s portrayal of the bears moves from comical if foreboding to downright terrifying. These are animals that can scent food seven times farther than a trained bloodhound, that can flip 300-pound stones with ease, and that can, when necessary, run in bursts of speed rivaling a deer’s. When the bears finally start mauling humans—attacking two women in their homes—Hongoltz-Hetling’s relation of the scenes is nightmarish. “If you look at their eyes, you understand,” one survivor tells him, “that they are completely alien to us.”

What was the deal with Grafton’s bears? Hongoltz-Hetling investigates the question at length, probing numerous hypotheses for why the creatures have become so uncharacteristically aggressive, indifferent, intelligent, and unafraid. Is it the lack of zoning, the resulting incursion into bear habitats, and the reluctance of Graftonites to pay for, let alone mandate, bear-proof garbage bins? Might the bears be deranged somehow, perhaps even disinhibited and emboldened by toxoplasmosis infections, picked up from eating trash and pet waste from said unsecured bins? There can be no definitive answer to these questions, but one thing is clear: The libertarian social experiment underway in Grafton was uniquely incapable of dealing with the problem. “Free Towners were finding that the situations that had been so easy to problem-solve in the abstract medium of message boards were difficult to resolve in person.”

Grappling with what to do about the bears, the Graftonites also wrestled with the arguments of certain libertarians who questioned whether they should do anything at all—especially since several of the town residents had taken to feeding the bears, more or less just because they could. One woman, who prudently chose to remain anonymous save for the sobriquet “Doughnut Lady,” revealed to Hongoltz-Hetling that she had taken to welcoming bears on her property for regular feasts of grain topped with sugared doughnuts. If those same bears showed up on someone else’s lawn expecting similar treatment, that wasn’t her problem. The bears, for their part, were left to navigate the mixed messages sent by humans who alternately threw firecrackers and pastries at them. Such are the paradoxes of Freedom. Some people just “don’t get the responsibility side of being libertarians,” Rosalie Babiarz tells Hongoltz-Hetling, which is certainly one way of framing the problem.

Pressed by bears from without and internecine conflicts from within, the Free Town Project began to come apart. Caught up in “pitched battles over who was living free, but free in the right way,” the libertarians descended into accusing one another of statism, leaving individuals and groups to do the best (or worst) they could. Some kept feeding the bears, some built traps, others holed up in their homes, and still others went everywhere toting increasingly larger-caliber handguns. After one particularly vicious attack, a shadowy posse formed and shot more than a dozen bears in their dens. This effort, which was thoroughly illegal, merely put a dent in the population; soon enough, the bears were back in force.

Meanwhile, the dreams of numerous libertarians came to ends variously dramatic and quiet. A real estate development venture known as Grafton Gulch, in homage to the dissident enclave in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, went belly-up. After losing a last-ditch effort to secure tax exemption, a financially ruined Connell found himself unable to keep the heat on at the Meetinghouse; in the midst of a brutal winter, he waxed apocalyptic and then died in a fire. Franz quit his survivalist commune, which soon walled itself off into a prisonlike compound, the better to enjoy freedom. And John Babiarz, the erstwhile inaugurator of the Project, became the target of relentless vilification by his former ideological cohorts, who did not appreciate his refusal to let them enjoy unsecured blazes on high-wildfire–risk afternoons. When another, higher-profile libertarian social engineering enterprise, the Free State Project, received national attention by promoting a mass influx to New Hampshire in general (as opposed to just Grafton), the Free Town Project’s fate was sealed. Grafton became “just another town in a state with many options,” options that did not have the same problem with bears.

Or at least—not yet. Statewide, a perverse synergy between conservationist and austerity impulses in New Hampshire governance has translated into an approach to “bear management” policy that could accurately be described as laissez-faire. When Graftonites sought help from New Hampshire Fish and Game officials, they received little more than reminders that killing bears without a license is illegal, and plenty of highly dubious victim-blaming to boot. Had not the woman savaged by a bear been cooking a pot roast at the time? No? Well, nevertheless. Even when the state has tried to rein in the population with culls, it has been too late. Between 1998 and 2013, the number of bears doubled in the wildlife management region that includes Grafton. “Something’s Bruin in New Hampshire—Learn to Live with Bears,” the state’s literature advises.

The bear problem, in other words, is much bigger than individual libertarian cranks refusing to secure their garbage. It is a problem born of years of neglect and mismanagement by legislators, and, arguably, indifference from New Hampshire taxpayers in general, who have proved reluctant to step up and allocate resources to Fish and Game, even as the agency’s traditional source of funding—income from hunting licenses—has dwindled. Exceptions like Doughnut Lady aside, no one wants bears in their backyard, but apparently no one wants to invest sustainably in institutions doing the unglamorous work to keep them out either. Whether such indifference and complacency gets laundered into rhetoric of fiscal prudence, half-baked environmentalism, or individual responsibility, the end result is the same: The bears abide—and multiply.

Their prosperity also appears to be linked to man-made disasters that have played out on a national and global scale—patterns of unsustainable construction and land use, and the climate crisis. More than once, Hongoltz-Hetling flags the fact that upticks in bear activity unfold alongside apparently ever more frequent droughts. Drier summers may well be robbing bears of traditional plant and animal sources of food, even as hotter winters are disrupting or even ending their capacity to hibernate. Meanwhile, human garbage, replete with high-calorie artificial ingredients, piles up, offering especially enticing treats, even in the dead of winter—particularly in places with zoning and waste management practices as chaotic as those in Grafton, but also in areas where suburban sprawl is reaching farther into the habitats of wild animals. The result may be a new kind of bear, one “torn between the unique dangers and caloric payloads that humans provide—they are more sleep-deprived, more anxious, more desperate, and more twitchy than the bear that nature produced.” Ever-hungry for new frontiers in personal autonomy and market emancipation, human beings have altered the environment with the unintended result of empowering newly ravenous bears to boot.

Ignoring institutional failure and mounting crises does not make them go away. But some may take refuge in confidence that, when the metaphorical chickens (or, rather, bears) finally come home to roost, the effects are never felt equally. When bears show up in higher-income communities like Hanover (home to Dartmouth College), Hongoltz-Hetling notes, they get parody Twitter accounts and are promptly evacuated to wildernesses in the north; poorer rural locales are left to fend for themselves, and the residents blamed for doing what they can. In other words, the “unintended natural selection of the bears that are trying to survive alongside modern humans” is unfolding along with competition among human beings amid failing infrastructure and scarce resources, a struggle with Social Darwinist dynamics of its own.

The distinction between a municipality of eccentric libertarians and a state whose response to crisis is, in so many words, “Learn to Live With It” may well be a matter of degree rather than kind. Whether it be assaults by bears, imperceptible toxoplasmosis parasites, or a way of life where the freedom of markets ultimately trumps individual freedom, even the most cocksure of Grafton’s inhabitants must inevitably face something beyond and bigger than them. In that, they are hardly alone. Clearly, when it comes to certain kinds of problems, the response must be collective, supported by public effort, and dominated by something other than too-tidy-by-half invocations of market rationality and the maximization of individual personal freedom. If not, well, then we had all best get some practice in learning when and how to play dead, and hope for the best.

[whencyclopedia]

Consequences of the English Civil Wars

The impact and consequences of the English Civil Wars (1642-1651) were many and far-reaching. Charles I of England (r. 1625-1649) was executed, and the monarchy was abolished. Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) then headed the Republic as the Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland. For many commoners, their lands and property were confiscated, taxes were higher than ever, and they suffered death and disease like never before. Finally, the uncertainty of just how to replace the monarchy brought forth a spring of new groups with new ideas on how to live, how to interpret the Bible, and what should be the obligations and responsibilities of those who governed them.

The main consequences and impact of the English Civil Wars include:

Execution of Charles I

Exile of Charles II to France

Abolition of the monarchy in England

Abolition of the House of Lords

Abolition of the Star Chamber

Reforms in the Anglican Church

Increase in the powers of the English Parliament

A wave of new and radical ideas concerning religion and politics

A boom in printed material, especially by various religious groups

People were subjected to high taxes and duties to pay for the wars

Many Irish Catholics had their land confiscated

The Scottish Kirk was dissolved

Scotland and Ireland sent members to the Westminster Parliament

Creation of a permanent and professional army

Royalist and church estates were sold off

Destruction of historic castles, buildings, and towns in all three kingdoms

Around 100,000 deaths in battle

Around 100,000 civilian deaths

Continue reading...

[rjzimmerman]

Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen. (New York Times)

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

Since 2018, more than 1.9 million home insurance contracts nationwide have been dropped — “nonrenewed,” in the parlance of the industry. In more than 200 counties, the nonrenewal rate has tripled or more, according to the findings of a congressional investigation released Wednesday.

As a warming planet delivers more wildfires, hurricanes and other threats, America’s once reliably boring home insurance market has become the place where climate shocks collide with everyday life.

The consequences could be profound. Without insurance, you can’t get a mortgage; without a mortgage, most Americans can’t buy a home. Communities that are deemed too dangerous to insure face the risk of falling property values, which means less tax revenue for schools, police and other basic services. As insurers pull back, they can destabilize the communities left behind, making their decisions a predictor of the disruption to come.

Now, for the first time, the scale of that pullback is becoming public. Last fall, the Senate Budget Committee demanded the country’s largest insurance companies provide the number of nonrenewals by county and year. The result is a map that tracks the climate crisis in a new way.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, a trade group, said information about nonrenewals was “unsuitable for providing meaningful information about climate change impacts,” because the data doesn’t show why individual insurers made decisions. The group added that efforts to gather data from insurers “could have an anticompetitive effect on the market.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island and the committee’s chairman, said the new information was crucial. In an interview, he called the new data as good an indicator as any “for predicting the likelihood and timing of a significant, systemic economic crash,” as disruption in the insurance market spreads to property values.

“The climate crisis that is coming our way is not just about polar bears, and it’s not just about green jobs,” Mr. Whitehouse said Wednesday during a hearing on the investigation’s findings. “It actually is coming through your mail slot, in the form of insurance cancellations, insurance nonrenewals and dramatic increases in insurance costs.”

The map of dropped policies shows how the crisis in the American home insurance market has spread beyond well-known problems in Florida and California. The jump in nonrenewals now extends along the Gulf Coast, through Alabama and Mississippi; up the Atlantic seaboard, through the Carolinas, Virginia and into southern New England; inland, to parts of the plains and Intermountain West; and even as far as Hawaii.

[linguisticdiscovery]

Ways English borrowed words from Latin

Latin has been influencing English since before English existed!

Here’s a non-exhaustive list of ways that English got vocabulary from Latin:

early Latin influence on the Germanic tribes: The Germanic tribes borrowed words from the Romans while still in continental Europe, before coming to England.

camp, wall, pit, street, mile, cheap, mint, wine, cheese, pillow, cup, linen, line, pepper, butter, onion, chalk, copper, dragon, peacock, pipe, bishop

Roman occupation of England: The Celts borrowed words from the Romans when the Romans invaded England, and the Anglo-Saxons later borrowed those Latin words from the Celts.

port, tower, -chester / -caster / -cester (place name suffix), mount

Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons: Roman missionaries to England converted the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity and brought Latin with them.

altar, angel, anthem, candle, disciple, litany, martyr, mass, noon, nun, offer, organ, palm, relic, rule, shrine, temple, tunic, cap, sock, purple, chest, mat, sack, school, master, fever, circle, talent

Norman Conquest: The Norman French invaded England in 1066 under William the Conqueror, making Norman French the language of the state. Many words were borrowed from French, which had evolved out of Latin.

noble, servant, messenger, feast, story, government, state, empire, royal, authority, tyrant, court, council, parliament, assembly, record, tax, subject, public, liberty, office, warden, peer, sir, madam, mistress, slave, religion, confession, prayer, lesson, novice, creator, saint, miracle, faith, temptation, charity, pity, obedience, justice, equity, judgment, plea, bill, panel, evidence, proof, sentence, award, fine, prison, punishment, plead, blame, arrest, judge, banish, property, arson, heir, defense, army, navy, peace, enemy, battle, combat, banner, havoc, fashion, robe, button, boots, luxury, blue, brown, jewel, crystal, taste, toast, cream, sugar, salad, lettuce, herb, mustard, cinnamon, nutmeg, roast, boil, stew, fry, curtain, couch, screen, lamp, blanket, dance, music, labor, fool, sculpture, beauty, color, image, tone, poet, romance, title, story, pen, chapter, medicine, pain, stomach, plague, poison

The Renaissance: The intense focus on writings from classical antiquity during the Renaissance led to the borrowing of numerous words directly from Latin.

atmosphere, disability, halo, agile, appropriate, expensive, external, habitual, impersonal, adapt, alienate, benefit, consolidate, disregard, erupt, exist, extinguish, harass, meditate

The Scientific Revolution: The need for new technical and scientific terms led to many neoclassical compounds formed from Classical Greek and Latin elements, or new uses of Latin prefixes.

automobile, transcontinental, transformer, prehistoric, preview, prequel, subtitle, deflate, component, data, experiment, formula, nucleus, ratio, structure

Not to mention most borrowings from other Romance languages, such as Spanish or Italian, which also evolved from Latin.

Further Reading: A history of the English language (Baugh & Cable)

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

On this day in 1787, thirty-nine brave men signed the proposed U.S. Constitution, recognizing all who are born in the United States or by naturalization, have become citizens

+

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 17, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 18, 2024

In 1761, 55-year-old Benjamin Franklin attended the coronation of King George III and later wrote that he expected the young monarch’s reign would “be happy and truly glorious.” Fifteen years later, in 1776, he helped to draft and then signed the Declaration of Independence. An 81-year-old man in 1787, he urged his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to rally behind the new plan of government they had written. 

“I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them,” he said, “For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”

The framers of the new constitution hoped it would fix the problems of the first attempt to create a new nation. During the Revolutionary War, the Second Continental Congress had hammered out a plan for a confederation of states, but with fears of government tyranny still uppermost in lawmakers’ minds, they centered power in the states rather than in a national government. 

The result—the Articles of Confederation—was a “firm league of friendship” among the 13 new states, overseen by a congress of men chosen by the state legislatures and in which each state had one vote. The new pact gave the federal government few duties and even fewer ways to meet them. Indicating their inclinations, in the first substantive paragraph the authors of the agreement said: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” 

Within a decade, the states were refusing to contribute money to the new government and were starting to contemplate their own trade agreements with other countries. An economic recession in 1786 threatened farmers in western Massachusetts with the loss of their farms when the state government in the eastern part of the state refused relief; in turn, when farmers led by Revolutionary War captain Daniel Shays marched on Boston, propertied men were so terrified their own property would be seized that they raised their own army for protection. 

The new system clearly could not protect property of either the poor or the rich and thus faced the threat of landless mobs. The nation seemed on the verge of tearing itself apart, and the new Americans were all too aware that both England and Spain were standing by, waiting to make the most of the opportunities such chaos would create.

And so, in 1786, leaders called for a reworking of the new government centered not on the states, but on the people of the nation represented by a national government. The document began, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union….” 

The Constitution established a representative democracy, a republic, in which three branches of government would balance each other to prevent the rise of a tyrant. Congress would write all “necessary and proper” laws, levy taxes, borrow money, pay the nation’s debts, establish a postal service, establish courts, declare war, support an army and navy, organize and call forth “the militia to execute the Laws of the Union” and “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” 

The president would execute the laws, but if Congress overstepped, the president could veto proposed legislation. In turn, Congress could override a presidential veto. Congress could declare war, but the president was the commander in chief of the army and had the power to make treaties with foreign powers. It was all quite an elegant system of paths and tripwires, really.

A judicial branch would settle disputes between inhabitants of the different states and guarantee every defendant a right to a jury trial.

In this system, the new national government was uppermost. The Constitution provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” and promised that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

Finally, it declared: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such,” Franklin said after a weary four months spent hashing it out, “because I think a general Government necessary for us,” and, he said, it “astonishes me…to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our…States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.” 

“On the whole,” he said to his colleagues, “I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility—and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”

On September 17, 1787, they did. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[itsravenbitch]

I'm done. I'm done with the struggle, I'm done being afraid of my own power. I'm getting in the void today and living the life of my dreams.

I scripted it already. I just want to slide right into my new life with ease. Investments have paid off. I have millions. My financial paperwork will be tucked in the safe in my closet along with some 10k stacks of USD, EUR, GBP, and CNY...30 gold bars and stacks of nicely stored Silver Coins. Throw in some Copper Couns and Titanium Bars for diversity. Self storage cause I'm a Dragon.

In this safe the paperwork will be for my equity portfolios in Blackrock and Fidelity as well as my automatic Treasury Bill portfolios which churn about $10million of liquid USD in interest generated income (currently 600k a year). I'll also have the check books for my 10 liquid cash bank accounts/money market accounts, which always have 250k in them each...my independent financial advisor in NYC makes sure of it...also my tax guy. I visit with them once a month and take a long weekend to enjoy NYC and New England.

I haven't bought any houses yet. Still shopping. Still wondering where I want my routines to be set. But I will be in the process of buying my Mother and Sister properties...also setting up some cash transfers for my friends...anonymously ofc. They'll know I'm good, but I'm keeping all my shit private.

I'm gonna be a dragon. One unified by light and dark. A witch. A curator. An explorer of the multiverse. I will spoil TF outta my family and friends. Live by example and inspire others. Explore all studies of this reality concept and make my life a masterful piece of art. I'm not a gaudy rich person, I'm intentional and tasteful. Luxury that is feng shui.

I've been here all along. And I'm now getting in the vehicle that will ground me into this reality.

ain’t gon lie you kinda lost me.. but i love to see ppl finally be done w the bullshit of the same cycle

[on-partiality]

Today's the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party so here's some information on the Sons of Liberty, the lead up to the Boston Tea Party and what happened after!

apologies for any inaccuracies, I wrote this pretty late

The conflict between the American colonies and New England started after the French and Indian war ended with the Treaty of Paris on the 10th of February, 1763. The French and Indian war started because of conflicting territory claims in North America between the British and the French. Originally it was fought between only the British Americans and the French colonists with Native Americans helping on either side (especially with the French because they were severely outnumbered). However two years into the war the United Kingdom - except for ireland - decided enough was enough and officially declared a war with France which started a large world-wide conflict over many territories. In the end, the war was won by the Colonial Americans and British, the French lost all of their North American territory and what used to be their territory was split somewhat evenly between the Spanish and the British but that was only sorted out after the British fought in a war against the Spanish called the Anglo-Spanish war (the first one). So a victory, that sounds good for America right? Wrong. Wars are expensive, maintaining an army is expensive and the British were dealing with many other wars in all different territories at around the same time so England had a national debt of nearly 177.645 MILLION modern day USD.

England had a HUGE poverty crisis. They had to come up with a way to get money and quickly so on April the 5th 1764 the British parliament amended their pre-existing Sugar and Molasses Act. A tax on the importation of wine, molasses, indigo and sugar from places that weren't part of Britain, mainly the non-British Caribbean. This act also banned all foreign rum. Then on March the 22nd, 1765 the British parliament passed the stamp act. A tax on playing cards, newspapers, legal documents. The main problem with this tax was that it couldn't be paid in the paper money used in the 13 colonies, it had to be paid off using the British Sterling which wasn't easy to obtain in America. That and paper was possibly the most important resource in the 18th century. Later in October 1765, a Stamp Act Congress was held in Philadelphia to discuss all of the problems with this act. Then on March the 24th the British passed the Quartering Act which stated that if British troops want to stay at your house you have to provide them with food and let them inside of your house. This was a clear invasion of two very basic rights of Englishmen, private property and personal security.

The Americans fought back against these acts like with Boston's non-importation agreement where merchants from Boston agreed not to buy or sell anything from/to Britain and the Golden Hill riot in New York and the Gaspée Affair which was when a group burned a British ship while the soldiers were off looking for smugglers in Rhode Island, the group was then accused of treason. The most notable of all of these protests though was the later Boston Tea Party.

The Boston Tea Party happened because of a group called the Sons of Liberty which was created in 1765 out of a strong hatred of the Stamp Act. They believed that it was ridiculous that the British could tax the Americans when the Americans didn't even have a representative in parliament, their phrase was 'no taxation without representation'. There's a lot of dispute over what kind of organisation the Sons of Liberty actually was. I might go into all of the theories in another post but for the moment if you want to come up with your own idea on it I suggest looking into them yourself, for this post I'm just going to call them a group or organisation because it's pretty ambiguous. Anyway, the Sons of Liberty usually met at liberty poles/liberty trees which are believed to have been marked as meeting places using the Sons of Liberty's flag. The group was founded in Boston in the Massachusetts Bay colony and it's leader was Samuel 'Sam' Adams.

The Sons of Liberty's first big really move was to burn an effigy of the local Stamp Act enforcer, Andrew Oliver and then burn his office and destroyed the house of his associate. The group's protests were more often then not violent but they got their points across. It didn't help when the Boston Massacre happened in 1770, which only further outraged the colonists, expect the Boston Massacre to get it's own in depth post one day because the court trial was super interesting. Then on the 10th of May, 1773 the British made another act called the Tea Act which made it so that the colonists had to pay more for tea that wasn't legally imported. The Tea Act was meant to help the British East India Tea Company because they were making most of Britains money and they'd gone into a huge debt which caused 20-30 English banks to collapse and started the British Credit Crisis of 1772-1773. The problem was that because the imported tea from Britain was really cheap people didn't buy from local businesses which caused farmers to go completely bankrupt. The Tea Act was the final straw for the Sons of Liberty and many Americans.

Britain sent a shipment of East India Company Tea to America and all of the American colonies that the tea was going to be sent to convinced the people on the ship to resign except for Massachusetts. So the Dartmouth, a ship full of tea arrived in Boston Harbour, Samuel Adams called for a meeting at Fanueuil Hall and thousands of people turned up so they had to move meeting places. During the meeting the Colonists discussed possible resolutions, they decided to have a medium group of men watching the tea to make sure it wouldn't be unloaded and pleaded for the ship to leave. The governor of Massachusetts refused to let the ship leave and two more ships arrived. On December the 16th, 1773, Samuel Adams met with the people of Massachusetts again to tell them about the governors refusal, the meeting caused total fury amongst all of the colonists.

In protest of the Tea Act and all of the other taxes the British had put on the Americans, the people ran out of the meeting room, some of them put on Native American costumes both in an attempt to conceal their identity because what they were about to do was illegal and as a symbolic choice to show that America's their country, not Britain. They then ran onto the 3 tea ships while Samuel Adams was telling everyone to calm down and stay for the end of the meeting. And spent 3 hours hurling all of the chests of tea into the water.

The British did not respond well, they believed that the Colonists needed to be punished so they passed the infamous Intolerable Acts which consisted of the Boston Port Act, meant to force Boston to pay for the tea by closing the port until the people of Boston paid for the tea which the Colonists argued was unfair because it was punishing the whole population for something only about half of them did, the Massachusetts Government Act which changed the way that the government of Massachusetts worked by giving people appointed by the British Parliament/King far more power, this made it easier for the British government to manage the Massachusetts Bay colony from England, the Administration of Justice Acts which state that any accused Royal officials can get a trial in England if they don't believe that they would be judged fairly in Massachusetts - which seems like a strange thing to add given how the Boston Massacre trial with John Adams went? - And I've already talked about the last intolerable act, the Quartering act which states that you have to let British troops stay in your house if they want to and you have to give them food.

[horizon-verizon]

daenaera's parents would be a white woman and a black man if we follow the HOTD line, so daenaera would probably be mixed race ?

I heard that in England, children of interracial Black-White parents aren't considered "Black" either legally or socially. Instead they are considered just "mixed". She'd still be Black in the American racial system, as well as "mixed race", which itself is not a separate racial category in the U.S. like "Asian", "Pacific islander", "Black", "white" are. It's used more as a descriptor before those legal terms, like "mixed raced Black person". Because in the U.S., what defines you as legally "Black" (therefore after years of slavery laws like that, visually and socially "Black as well") is the "one-drop rule" and grandfather clause. And HotD is American, writing primarily for a U.S. to Canadian based audience, with English (Brits) people--or any English speakers with close ties to England and therefore colonization/transatlantic slave trade & slavery. Even with its mainly BR actors. Its writers are mostly American/U.S. raised. Even the orig series is written by an American, GRRM, writing for MOSTLY an American audience (yes people from all walks of life love and read the books and it's inspired on European, mostly British, history, I'm talking about TARGET audience).

History/Race system in the USA

The one drop rule is/was:

the nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation's definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.

AND (source)

enacted by seven Southern states between 1895 and 1910 to deny suffrage to African Americans. It provided that those who had enjoyed the right to vote prior to 1866 or 1867, and their lineal descendants, would be exempt from recently enacted educational, property, or tax requirements for voting. Because the former slaves had not been granted the franchise until the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, those clauses worked effectively to exclude Black people from the vote but assured the franchise to many impoverished and illiterate whites.

Which really came from an earlier precedent of slavers enforcing many rules of any person born from an African woman/enslaved woman would be considered "naturally" enslaved themselves. Tying up Black people to slavery through their traceable ancestry, once more, at first and continued to be enforced to one's being born to an enslaved woman...bc you can't really hide who a baby's mother is, who masters already had full control over (and r*ped, so they had to find a way to keep the source of their unpaid labor "yielding" without having to acknowledge, fully, that the children were of their own "blood"):

[source] Regardless of their white paternity, children born to enslaved women inherited their mothers’ status as slaves.

--

[source] Starting 1662, the colony of Virginia and then other English colonies established that the legal status of a slave was inherited through the mother. As a result, the children of enslaved women legally became slaves.

--

[source] In just seventy years, the number of enslaved people in North America more than quadrupled. Such "natural increase" was only possible through enslaved women’s frequent reproduction, whose offspring were born legally enslaved. In 1662 the colony of Virginia enacted the law of partus sequitur ventrem, meaning that all children born to an enslaved woman would automatically be born a slave no matter what their father’s legal status was, and a similar law was adopted in South Carolina in 1740 and in Georgia in 1755. Partus sequitur ventrem hence spread across British North America and the Atlantic world, but only in the United States did the enslaved population increase so rapidly.

Race and racism inherently doesn't make sense bc it was never meant to. It was about white people creating categories they want to redefine every time it's convenient for them.

Back to ASoIaF

Even still, even if we somehow forever and always decided that Daenaera was "just mixed" and not "Black", she'd still not have a "purely" "white" ancestry and she wouldn't look "white". So green stans and racists/misogynoirists in the fandom would and will always prefer Jaehaera be Aegon's "true" wife.

Just as they do and did for arguing Baela would fare better being a Lady of her own house, that Rhaenyra "stole" her seat when that was just Corlys deciding what he wanted for his own house under tradition, and Baela somehow wouldn't benefit from being Queen of the Seven Kingdoms under Jace but somehow Helaena would?! Mind you, Baela, Laena, and Rhaena are all "mixed" or "mixed race", bc Laena's mother was Rhaenys AND Baela/Rhaena's father was Daemon. Both Targs who are white in the show.

Finally look to Megan Markle's treatment in the UK despite she is mixed race AND she's not considered the same sort of "Black" there. Her ancestry, having a Black parent/grandparents was enough; race by itself has always been INTRINSICALLY Abt ancestry, heritage, a connection to Africa bc it came from the British/European own ancestry-defined social/class systems that STILL exist today in a different phases.

So...

[denimbex1986]

'Irish actors claim they have been treated like the poor relations in the film industry for decades despite big government tax breaks for major studios.

LA-based actor Alan Smyth revealed that Colin Farrell, Ruth Negga and Cillian Murphy have signed a petition for fair and equal pay for native performers and crew.

Over 2,500 people have added their signatures online.

It says the Irish diaspora in the US and worldwide strongly support the efforts of Irish Actors Equity, which is in talks with several government ministers to secure a guarantee “that Irish performers will not be subject to lesser terms and conditions regarding their intellectual property rights than international performers in similar roles”.

“This, unfortunately, has been the case for many years,” it states.

The petition is still open as Irish Equity plans to hold a solidarity rally with the striking SAG-AFTRA union and the Writers Guild of America today.

Smyth, who is from Dundalk, has first-hand experience of the set-up on both sides of the Atlantic. He has reaped the benefits of the American system where actors traditionally got residual cheques whenever their performances are aired.

The threat now, he says, is that the so-called “streamer” networks are imposing drastic cuts to the value of the residuals.

Hence, the strikes.

“It’s a lot worse in Ireland,” said the actor, who has starred in a number of big TV dramas, including CSI: NY and Criminal Minds.

“The system in Ireland is that the Irish cast and crew for the most part, unless it’s Colin or Cillian, are put on buyout contracts so don’t get residual payments.

“The awful thing about it is the Irish Government gives tax breaks to film and TV productions. Within the productions, the Irish cast and crew are paid far less than anyone brought over from England or the US. It’s 100pc discriminatory.

“Colin, Cillian and Ruth Negga have got behind the petition. They know how hard it is until you get to a point where you’re doing really, really well. I can really see how hurtful it is in Ireland.”

Actor Gerry O’Brien lodged a cheque for $800 (€735) yesterday for his role as an Irish man in Pirates of the Caribbean years ago. The payment covers just a quarter of the year.

He got a US contract for the job, rather than the typical Irish buyout one.

In contrast, he has earned just €54 in residuals in the last 20 years here. That was for an RTÉ TV series.

O’Brien said Equity wants a contract for Irish actors like that on offer to their British counterparts. The coveted UK contract sets out minimum pay rates, residual arrangements and other terms and conditions.

Irish production companies offer the buyout contracts on behalf of the major international studios when they are in town, he says.

A Dublin-based actor (27) did not want to be named for fear he would be “blacklisted” when going for jobs.

He has been following the Hollywood strike very closely.

“It shines a light on just how unfair the industry is,” he said.

“Those at the top are earning incredible amounts of money and profit. In a large part, it is due to those at the bottom scraping a living.

“I graduated from drama school in 2017. Last year, I made the most money I ever made working as an actor and that was €14,000. Obviously that is not sustainable.

“If you work on an Irish film, you get paid for the day of work and never see another penny. I routinely sign off my rights for €600 or €700 a day.

“I’m delighted that Cillian Murphy and Colm Meaney are coming out in support of small fry actors like myself.”

Actor Owen Roe has won many theatre awards during his career and his film appearances including Breakfast on Pluto, Intermission, Wide Open Spaces and Michael Collins.

He said actors here are “not prepared to go on strike” but it is an opportunity to inform younger ones of their rights.

“It’s far more competitive as well . There is AI and all those things. The whole buyout situation is not good for us.”

He was glad to see Cillian Murphy and other stars walk out of the Oppenheimer premiere in support of their US union.

“They don’t have to financially, I’d imagine,” he said. “It gives confidence to people who feel they are being exploited.

“I think it will be interesting to see what happens in America. If the whole thing of buyouts and residuals gets sorted. The attitude that we’re cheaper is offensive,” he said.'

[littlequeenies]

Maureen Wilson Plant

Maureen Plant, née Wilson was born in India. She was a trained nurse and the only wife of Led Zeppelin's frontman Robert Plant, and muse of the band's "Thank You" song. She is the mother of 3 of his children: Carmen Jane, Karac Pendra, and Logan Romero Plant.

Early Years and Family

Maureen F. Wilson was born in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), India on November 20th, 1948. She has one younger sister, Shirley Wilson.

Guitarist Vernon Pereira (1944 – 25 October 1976), who was a founding member of the Band of Joy with Chris Brown, was her cousin.

Maureen Wilson's father was chief of the Calcutta mounted police. Their family moved to Trinity Road, West Bromwich sometime after Indian independence, where he became a steel factory owner in Birmingham.

[Maureen and Robert at their home, Jennings Farm at Blakeshall in Worcestershire, England, by Mike Randolph/Paul Popper/Popperfoto]

Relationship with Robert Plant

In 1966, Maureen Wilson met Robert Plant at a Georgie Fame concert, which at the last minute was canceled. From then on they began seeing each other and their relationship blossomed. Throughout the mid-1960s, Plant struggled financially. He played in various bands such as Listen, Band of Joy, and even had a few solo projects.

Plant later acknowledged that Maureen, who was working as a qualified nurse at the time, had helped him financially during this period of chopping and changing bands. Apparently, Plant even had a short stint working in Maureen’s father’s steel factory to make ends meet.

On November 9th, 1968, Robert and Maureen married. The reception took place at the Roundhouse, a venue Led Zeppelin played earlier that evening.

In 1969, Maureen traveled with Led Zeppelin on their North American Spring Tour, however, this was her last ever tour on the road with the band. After that, she stayed on the family farm and looked after their children.

Also in 1969, Robert Plant dedicated the track “Thank You” to her.

Robert and maureen had three children: Carmen Jane (born 21 October 1968); Karak Pendra (20 April 1972 – 26 July 1977); and Logan Romero Plant (born January 21 1979). Robert was present for the birth of all 3 of their children.

[November 21, 1976 - Robert and Maureen with their children Karac Pendra and Carmen Jane, with Scarlet Page (C) at "The Song Remains the Same" premiere party.]

Car accident and Karac's death

The day after the last Earls Court date, on March 26th 1975, Robert Plant, Maureen, and their two children set out on a trip to Marrakech, Morocco. Jimmy Page, his girlfriend Charlotte Martin and their daughter, Scarlet, joined the Plants in June. The two families travelled through July and wound up on the Greek island of Rhodes. On August 3rd, Page left to check on some property in Sicily. The next day, Maureen Plant was driving her family and Scarlet Page in a rented Austin Mini car down a narrow road on the island when she lost control. The car hit a tree hard. Thrown against the steering wheel, Maureen suffered life-threatening injuries and had lost a large amount of blood. Robert first thought she was dead. Maureen's leg was broken, her pelvis fractured, and she suffered concussion for 36 hours from a fractured skull. Robert and their children were seriously injured but Scarlet Page was unhurt. Charlotte Martin and Maureen's sister Shirley Wilson, who were following in the car behind managed to get medical help, but there was concern the local facilities were inadequate and Swan Song Records tour manager Richard Cole was contacted to bring the Plants back home to England for emergency treatment. Band manager Peter Grant arranged for two Harley Street specialists as well as blood plasma to be sent via private jet in the meantime. While Robert had to be moved again to the Channel Islands for tax reasons and recuperation, Maureen remained in London to continue recovery. Robert wrote the song 'Tea for One', about his feelings for her on tours away from home.

Karac Plant was at the tender age of five when he became suddenly ill with an unidentified viral infection. On July 26th 1977, Led Zeppelin traveled to New Orleans for the next show. As they were checking into the hotel, Robert received a call from his wife Maureen at the family's farmhouse near Kidderminster, Worcestershire. The first phone call said his son was sick, and within the next two hours later, she informed Robert that Karac had passed away. Earlier Karac had felt ill and been ordered to bed by the family doctor, but his condition deteriorated. Maureen called an ambulance but he failed to respond to treatment and died on the way to Kidderminster General Hospital on Tuesday 26 July 1977. Robert Plant was shocked and devastated. An autopsy held on Monday 1 August 1977, revealed Karac had died from natural causes. Only a week earlier Carmen had become ill with the same stomach enteritis which affected Karac. Karac's funeral and cremation was held in the first week of August 1977.

[Robert Plant and his extended family, including (L-R) his then girlfriend Jessica Jupp, his son Logan Romero, Maureen, 2 grandchildren, Carmen, her husband and child?, Shirley Wilson and son Jesse Lee aka Jordan Plant.]

The 1980s and beyond

Logan Romero Plant was born on 27 January 1979. His birth hardened Robert's resolve not to tour the United States for any length of time.

Robert and Maureen divorced in August 1983, but they have remained friends.

Maureen Plant dated Ian Hatton, guitarist for Jason Bonham around 1991.

In October 2010, she attended a number of UK shows of the Robert Plant and the Band of Joy European Tour 2010.

[Maureen in 2008 with a friend/fan]

*CHECK OUR MAUREEN PLANT PHOTO ALBUM HOSTED AT GOOGLE PHOTOS*

[scotianostra]

On November 5th 1667 The borders custom of paying blackmail to avoid kidnapping was outlawed; the local population was urged to hound such criminals from the community.

The term blackmail itself was originated in the Scottish Borders meaning payments rendered in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders.

In the 16th century, blackmail was a tribute paid by farmers along the border of Scotland and England to freebooters for protection from their raids. The freebooters are often identified as the Border reivers, descended from both Scottish and English families in the region. They resorted to pillage and plunder, apparently, due to the disruptions and devastations wreaked by the ongoing war between the two peoples in the late Middle Ages. The Oxford English Dictionary first dates the term to the 1530s in Robert Pitcairn’s Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland.

The "mail" part of blackmail derives from Middle English male meaning "rent or tribute". This tribute was paid in goods or labour. Alternatively, it may be derived from two Scottish Gaelic words blathaich - to protect; and mal - tribute or payment.

Some etymologists point to black rent and white rent. Black rent, so the theory goes, could be paid in work, goods, livestock, or produce, the color associated with cattle or the ‘baser’ quality of the forms of payment. White rent, meanwhile, was paid in money, like silver, whose metal was once called “white.” Black rent was an indeed an earlier (1420s) form of blackmail, but the OED enters white rent as a variant of quit-rent, a kind of historical property tax that exempt (quit) renters from other obligations concerning the land under feudal law. Folk etymology probably accounts for the confusion.

Blackmail is said to signify payment in cattle. Whitemail in silver money. [nb elsewhere “greenmail” is payment for land]

More likely, the black in blackmail refers to the “illegal” (black market) or “evil” (black magic) nature of the extortion.

James I first tried to rein in the activities of Border Reivers in the early 1600′s , although his Grandfather, James V had previously hung around 50 Reivers including John Armstrong of Gilnockie in 1530, I think the upsurge of violence during the Bishops Wars and the civil war in general will have seen an upsurge in their activities for a time.

Interestingly I can only find one source for the outlawing of blackmailing, but the Reivers in general started to become a spent force following the Restoration and long-running lawlessness by Moss troopers, who were basically the Reivers of the late 17th century,. In 1662 the Moss Troopers Act had started the clamp down of the lawlessness on the English side of the border. A series of acts during the next century covered the whole country, the original acts stated that “the notorious thieves and spoil-takers in Northumberland or Cumberland were to be transported to America, there to remaine and not to returne"

Border Clans involved included Armstrongs, Irvings, Bells, Grahams, Beatties, Littles, Maxwells, Elliott's, Crosers, Nixons and Hendersons, not all were outlaws, I am generalising a wee bit.

[whencyclopedia]

American Revolution

The American Revolution (1765-1789) was a period of political upheaval in the Thirteen Colonies of British North America. Initially a protest over parliamentary taxes, it blossomed into a rebellion and led, ultimately, to the birth of the United States. Rooted in the ideas of the Enlightenment, the Revolution played an important role in the emergence of modern Western democracies.

Origins: Parliament & the American Identity

In February 1763, the Seven Years' War – or the French and Indian War as the North American theater was called – came to an end. As part of the peace agreement, the vanquished Kingdom of France ceded its colony of New France (Canada) as well as all its colonial territory east of the Mississippi River to its victorious rival, Great Britain. While this left Britain as the dominant colonial power in North America, this newfound supremacy came at a cost, namely a massive war debt. To offset the debt, the British Parliament decided to levy new taxes on the Thirteen Colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America. Much of the war had been fought defending these colonies, after all, and Parliament decided that the colonists should help shoulder the empire's financial burden.

Prior to this decision, Parliament had adhered to an unofficial policy of 'salutary neglect' when dealing with the American colonies. This meant that, despite their royal governors, the colonies were largely left to manage their own affairs, with colonial legislatures overseeing governance and taxation. The influence of these legislatures often equaled if not eclipsed the power of the colony's royally appointed governor. Due to differing foundational and developmental circumstances, each colony maintained its own identity – the Puritan society of New England, the Dutch origins of New York, and the tobacco economy of Virginia, for example, all influenced the formation of their colonial identities. Despite viewing themselves as separate from one another, the colonies were loosely bound by their shared ties to Britain and had united in common defense multiple times during the last century of colonial wars.

At the same time, the American colonists considered themselves Britons, and proudly so. After the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and the constitutional reforms that went with it, the British were viewed as the freest people in the world; they were guaranteed a right to representative government (Parliament) as well as the right to self-taxation. The colonists believed that these 'rights of Englishmen' extended to them, as befitting of their English blood and allegiance to the English king; indeed, many of these rights were echoed in the colonies' own charters. The idea that Parliament could directly tax the colonies, therefore, went against this notion; since no Americans were represented in Parliament, Parliament had no constitutional authority to tax them (i.e. taxation without representation). Parliament, of course, disagreed, arguing that the Americans were virtually represented, as was the case with the thousands of Englishmen who owned no property and could not vote. It was this fundamental disagreement over the Americans' rights and liberties – expressed in the guise of taxation – that lay at the heart of the American Revolution and the birth of the United States.

Continue reading...

[best-nun-tournament]

Round 1, Match 20

King Richard and Prince John (Robin Hood/English history) vs Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIII (Egyptian history)

Propaganda and history lesson under break.

King Richard and Prince John

Richard goes off to fight in the Crusades and John plots behind his back to steal and exploit the kingdom!

Poll Runner's Note: That's the Robin Hood legend, and there is some truth to it: While Richard was off on the crusade, John locked up Richard's chancellor Bishop Longchamp, set up his own royal court, and declared himself Richard's heir, over Richard's choice of their nephew Arthur (age 4). He even tried to have Richard declared legally dead so he could claim the throne (he had in fact been taken captive by the Duke of Austria and was then held for ransom by the Holy Roman Emperor). John left his wife to marry the King of France's sister so he'd support his claim, and basically started a civil war which lasted until Richard finally returned home. And that meant paying 100,000 pounds of silver in ransom. Everyone had to pay 25% of their property, on top of additional taxes.

Richard "forgave" John, in that he didn't have him killed and just confiscated most of his land, but he still officially declared his "hate and malevolence" towards John for over a year.

After Richard died five years later, John introduced yet more taxes, including England's first income tax. Why? To pay for a war with France to get back all the land that was lost when John asked the King of France to help him defeat Richard's supporters. A problem he himself caused by fighting with his brother!

Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIII

You know

Poll Runner's Note: I sure do, and now I'm going to tell everyone about it! Ptolemy XII, their father, had five children: Berenice, Cleopatra, Arsinoë, Ptolemy XIII, and Ptolemy XIV. Berenice had usurped Ptolemy XII's rule and was executed when he regained power, making Cleopatra his eldest living child. In his will, he declared that when he died Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIII should get married and reign as co-rulers of Egypt.

Ptolemy XII died when Cleopatra was about 18 and Ptolemy XIII was 11, and right from the start she was not interested in this co-ruler business. She started leaving his name off documents, leaving his face off the coins, and generally acting like she's the only ruler in Egypt. Unfortunately for her, Ptolemy's guardians weren't keen on being demoted from "power behind the throne" to "glorified babysitter", and they deposed Cleopatra and forced her to flee to Syria, where she raised an army and started a war against her brother. It didn't go well for her, and things were looking bad for her until Julius Caesar showed up with his army.

Caesar was 1) Already mad at Ptolemy's advisors for killing Pompey who he'd wanted to spare and 2) famously a huge slut so Cleopatra was pretty easily able to convince him to restore her to power.

It's at this point Arsinoë shows up with her army. She joins forces with Ptolemy XIII, declares herself Queen Arsinoë IV, and beseiges Cleopatra and Caesar in the palace complex. For five brutal months, they battled through the city. The fires are said to be how the Library of Alexandria was lost, which is probably a legend but it was still devastating. Ceasar himself almost drowned while fleeing Arsinoë's forces at the Battle of Pharos Island.

Finally Caesar's allies show up with their armies, and Ptolemy drowned trying to flee across the Nile while Arsinoë was taken prisoner. She was brought back to Rome as part of Caesar's triumph, but her life was spared and she lived out the rest of her days at the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. This was about five years because Cleopatra later persuaded Mark Antony to have her murdered right there in the temple.

Cleopatra married her youngest brother Ptolemy XIV, before finally poisoning him so she could make her son Caesarion the new Pharaoh.

Cleopatra was at least partially responsible for the deaths of all her siblings except the one her father killed, and the struggles between them were devastating for Egypt and caused a lot of suffering. These are some legitimately awful siblings.