• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

England Pavillion and Prince Philip

donaldtoo

Well-Known Member
I don't believe you......I bet you have a stretch Cadillac convertible with steer horns on the front as you pull up to an oil derrick

We actually do have oil wells on 2 family farm properties, and many of my family own horses, cowboy hats, boots, and guns. However, I don’t think any of us own a stretch Caddy convertible with steer horns...one of us may need to pic one up to complete the ensemble...!!!!! :hilarious:
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
So much for asking a simple question.

Guess I missed the architectural representations of the Necropolis, Edinburgh Castle, Glawegian red sandstone, or a Londonderry housing block.

So again, were their any simple acknowledgements such as an armband or black bunting ?
 

FutureCEO

Well-Known Member
Maybe a US variant of this would be if someone used Massachusetts as shorthand for all of New England. Our nickname for people from that state should tell you what you how that would go over.
Wait, so Massachusetts is part of a new United Kingdom more? ;)


People think Rhode Island is part of Massachusetts or Long Island. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's understandable (foreigners) and sometimes it's sad (Americans).

But I support New England being annexed by the UK or Canada.
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
The UK pavilion should celebrate its national dish of their country - chicken tikka masala, courtesy of the Indian immigrants who live and work in the UK.

It's not the National Dish. In many British pubs they also do food just like in The Rose & Crown in Epcot. Most pubs have a similar menu which comprises of popular choices made by pub goers. Many include a curry, a hamburger, a steak and chicken option and possibly fish and chips. If you asked 100 UK residents what our National Dish was, I doubt any that understood the question would answer chicken tikka masala :)
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
It's not the National Dish. In many British pubs they also do food just like in The Rose & Crown in Epcot. Most pubs have a similar menu which comprises of popular choices made by pub goers. Many include a curry, a hamburger, a steak and chicken option and possibly fish and chips. If you asked 100 UK residents what our National Dish was, I doubt any that understood the question would answer chicken tikka masala :)
Robin Cook Foreign UK Sec in 2001 announced that chicken tikka masala is the national dish of the UK.
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
Not only is there no England Pavilion, there hasn’t been a Queen of England in over 300 years.

And of course nobody asks if there is anything at the Canada Pavilion.

Anne being the last Queen of England and the first Queen of Great Britain.
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
Robin Cook Foreign UK Sec in 2001 announced that chicken tikka masala is the national dish of the UK.

That's not quite what he said....

"Chicken tikka masala is now a true British national dish, not only because it is the most popular, but because it is a perfect illustration of the way Britain absorbs and adapts external influences. Chicken tikka is an Indian dish. The masala sauce was added to satisfy the desire of British people to have their meat served in gravy."
 

Mr Ferret 88

Thank you sir. You were an inspiration.
That's not quite what he said....

"Chicken tikka masala is now a true British national dish, not only because it is the most popular, but because it is a perfect illustration of the way Britain absorbs and adapts external influences. Chicken tikka is an Indian dish. The masala sauce was added to satisfy the desire of British people to have their meat served in gravy."
Exactly. It's like saying the national dish of 'merica is hamburger.
 

Sam Magic

Well-Known Member
It’s pretty simple actually.
Ignorance.

In most of our minds, we overthrew our English overlords with the oppressive monarch, the King of England, back in the 1700s. Kicked his troops quite literally back into their boats in the sea.

Fast forward 250 years, with many of us not being given a solid history of the UK itself, and ya’ll in the UK having a common government, we just view you as one “unit”. Sort of like how most of the world thinks the USA is New York City or Los Angeles. That’s not the case of course, but that is how many view us.

And since our primary fixation on the UK is England, the UK = England in a general sense from our perspective.

Obviously not true, but neither is the assumption about the USA either.

Also, to clarify, being from Texas, I don’t own a horse, cowboy boots, a cowboy hat, not a lasso. I do have a gun however, so that part of the stereotype does hold true for many of us.
When American colonists rebelled in 1776, the United Kingdom had existed for almost 70 years. The U.K. was formed in 1707 with the passage of the first Acts of Union, which united the English and Scottish Parliaments. Wales had long before been annexed into England (Wales' identity as its polity outside of England is a relatively recent invention by Tony Blair's late '90s reforms.)

Our national myth that we rebelled against evil English overlords and an oppressive monarch is somewhat false. It's undoubtedly the national myth, but it's a bad one. For starters, the rebellion was initially against Parliament--not the King. Secondly, the monarchy was extremely popular in the United States until the revolution. It's why the Declaration of Independence was addressed to the King; there was still hope their beloved monarch would intervene on their behalf and gain them parliamentary representation.

The national myth we're all familiar with today is more a product of post-revolution propagandists.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Exactly. It's like saying the national dish of 'merica is hamburger.
In regards to a good tasting burger, hands down America does it right. Couldn't even eat the horrible tasting burgers when visiting the UK, but the fish and chips and the Indian cuisine was top notch.
 
Last edited:

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
In regards to a good tasting burger, hands down America does it right. Couldn't even eat the horrible tasting burgers when visiting the UK, but the fish and chips and the Indian cuisine was top notch.
If you’ve not eaten a fully loaded bacon cheeseburger from your local greasy spoon you haven’t lived.

Let me know if you’re ever near Manchester 😁
 

Creathir

Premium Member
When American colonists rebelled in 1776, the United Kingdom had existed for almost 70 years. The U.K. was formed in 1707 with the passage of the first Acts of Union, which united the English and Scottish Parliaments. Wales had long before been annexed into England (Wales' identity as its polity outside of England is a relatively recent invention by Tony Blair's late '90s reforms.)

Our national myth that we rebelled against evil English overlords and an oppressive monarch is somewhat false. It's undoubtedly the national myth, but it's a bad one. For starters, the rebellion was initially against Parliament--not the King. Secondly, the monarchy was extremely popular in the United States until the revolution. It's why the Declaration of Independence was addressed to the King; there was still hope their beloved monarch would intervene on their behalf and gain them parliamentary representation.

The national myth we're all familiar with today is more a product of post-revolution propagandists.
While that was eloquently put, it is completely inaccurate.

The Declaration of Independence and the Redress of Grievances contained within it are not accusing Parliament of the offenses, but the monarch itself.
Regardless, Great Britain, the king, or both, were viewed quite negatively in the colonies. Many liked them and were loyalists, but many did not as well.
In the end, the colonists organized, planned, and rebelled.

Not a myth. It did happen.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
It's why the Declaration of Independence was addressed to the King; there was still hope their beloved monarch would intervene on their behalf and gain them parliamentary representation.
“The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.”

Most of the Declaration of Independence is a list of grievances that each start with “He has.” It is not a plea for help.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom