UK Holiday Petition!

[Pearl_of_Tyburn]

Dear CAF Denizens,

Britain is one of the only countries in the world not to have a special holiday celebrating itself as a united entity. This is most unfortunate, as it is one of the oldest democracies to maintain continuity of government system in the world. Combine this with its rich cultural heritage and vast history, and it it is honestly out-of-this-world that it does not have such a day as of yet.

The following petition seeks to remedy this problem. The United Kingdom deserves to be celebrated, for all the good it has done throughout the world, and having such a holiday put in place would be another step towards promoting a positive image of the country, within and without. So if you are a British citizen and a patriot, please do sign this petition here:

When we have 10,000 people sign it, the government has to respond. When there is 100,000 it has to be discussed in parliament. As an American, I cannot sign it, but I would with all my heart. So I ask you, my British friends, please sign it for me, as well as for yourselves!

If you agree, please share it around as much as you can!

 

[Peccavi]

Wales does not have a national holiday for St. David’s Day 1 March - before Britain as an Old Briton I would like to see my Saints Day recognised first.

 

[ephesians4]

Yes let’s and let’s have a siesta every afternoon as well. There’s no need to go around taking pointless days off, there are enough of those already. There’s work to do, an economy to try and rescue, and a public purse to fill (upon which multitudes rely) etc.

 

[Simca]

Same here in Ireland.

There’s lots of holidays, referred to as "Bank Holidays’’. Very weird, really!!
I mean, Why should only the bankers have the day off? (just kidding)

But I’ve always thought that each holiday should be given a special name celebrating a special person or event.

 

[Peccavi]

The UK has LESS public holidays than the rest of Europe !

 

[ephesians4]

The UK might have FEWER public holidays than the rest of Europe, but it probably should. Frankly, not every part of Europe is a great place to emulate, given the spot we’re in.

We have a lot of mouths to feed for every working person and the shark is at our heel in terms of GDP/deficit. We’ve got to “keep running, Forrest” collectively.

 

[didymus]

Dear CAF Denizens,

Britain is one of the only countries in the world not to have a special holiday celebrating itself as a united entity. This is most unfortunate, as it is one of the oldest democracies to maintain continuity of government system in the world. Combine this with its rich cultural heritage and vast history, and it it is honestly out-of-this-world that it does not have such a day as of yet.

The following petition seeks to remedy this problem. The United Kingdom deserves to be celebrated,** for all the good it has done throughout the world**

Thank you for making me spit coffee all over my monitor. I’m sure “lesser breeds” around the world are grateful.

As for a national birthday as a united entity don’t you have a couple Acts of Union to choose from about 100 years apart? Pick one.
Actually, isn’t the Queen’s birthday the national holiday?

 

[ephesians4]

Thank you for making me spit coffee all over my monitor. I’m sure “lesser breeds” around the world are grateful.

Sadly, great powers dominating others with military power and economic muscle sow the seeds of strife and resentment, even if, as the ruling elite of the UK did, they see themselves as the mother of the free and the brave/strong arm of Christendom/whatever, liberating lesser nations from their less desirable ways, and even if they see the death, destruction and suffering as a means to that end which posterity will forget.

The British Empire was not the first to make that terrible mistake, it was far from the only power doing it in its own time, and it clearly Is Not the last.

As for a national birthday as a united entity don’t you have a couple Acts of Union to choose from about 100 years apart? Pick one.
Actually, isn’t the Queen’s birthday the national holiday?

Well Her Majesty’s birthday is an important date.

It would be difficult to really agree on a national holiday like the 4th of July, because there are a number of rightful nations in the UK and there have been lots of conflicts for/against the imposition of rule which not everyone would celebrate the result of. Even the union itself is an accommodation between different interests, and not really a happy beacon of national principles that rings across the ages.

 

[Murmurs]

Wasn’t there a move a few years ago under the previous Labour govt to try and make the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar a kind of national holiday? (Lots to be said in its favour because it’s somewhat less divisive than the Union of the Crowns (1603) or the Act of Union (1707), or even something directly related to the monarch such as her/his official birthday. Although admittedly, maybe there are more inclusive things to celebrate than beating the French and Spanish in a naval engagement…

To be honest, I think it is a more characteristically ‘British’ thing to not have a day to wave the flag and set off fireworks/have street parties/parades/whatever. What is more quintessentially British than a slight reserve about being shouty about ourselves?

Once upon a time there was no need for a ‘national holiday’ because it was so obvious to any right-thinking British person that Great Britain was innately wonderful anyway, even with a warts-and-all view of the Empire - so why celebrate the bleedin’ obvious? I think the more recent call from some quarters (which I’m not actually against, let me be clear!), is representive of unease and malaise. Quiet but genuine self-confidence doesn’t need to celebrate to be sure of itself, I think - it is the insecure or arrogant who need to boast.

(This isn’t a dig at Independence Day for Americans or the 14th July for the French or any country with a ‘national’ day - but I do think there is something un-British about having such a holiday - or something very British about not having one, and it is equally and wonderfully American to have their patriotic holiday. That’s genuinely awesome. I’m not sure Britain would benefit, is all…not because the UK is any better than anyone else, just it’s not a very properly British way of self-perception)

 

[Allegra]

It would be difficult to really agree on a national holiday like the 4th of July, because there are a number of rightful nations in the UK and there have been lots of conflicts for/against the imposition of rule which not everyone would celebrate the result of. Even the union itself is an accommodation between different interests, and not really a happy beacon of national principles that rings across the ages.

Maybe that’s why they don’t have one?

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Why not Guy Fawkes day? Sure, it celebrates a guy being strung up, but it’s as good a celebration as any. Besides, the presence of goofy Guy Fawkes masks is sure to appeal to the 4chan-obsessed younger generation.

 

[Murmurs]

Why not Guy Fawkes day? Sure, it celebrates a guy being strung up, but it’s as good a celebration as any. Besides, the presence of goofy Guy Fawkes masks is sure to appeal to the 4chan-obsessed younger generation.

It’s kind of an anti-Catholic festival. Which personally I’m not bothered about because bygones are bygones but I imagine the Archbishop of Westminster might raise an eyebrow.

In 1851 with Pius IX re-introduced the Catholic hierarchy of bishops to England, he timed the announcement rather unfortunately on 4th November, the day before Guy Fawkes’ Night, and he, along with the new, first Archbp of Westminster (Nicholas Wiseman), were burned in effigies around the country, as well as the usual Guy. Not saying it would happen now, but every time ones finds a possible holiday, there’s generally a good reason it’s not used already!

 

[DrTaffy]

It’s kind of an anti-Catholic festival.

Anti terrorist. The point is not that he was Catholic but that he was part of a plot to blow up the elected Parliament. Which most Catholics would agree to be wrong.

Or, to be honest, the point these days is “excuse to have fireworks”!!

 

[liturgyluver]

Actually, isn’t the Queen’s birthday the national holiday?

No, it isn’t any kind of holiday.

 

[Murmurs]

Anti terrorist. The point is not that he was Catholic but that he was part of a plot to blow up the elected Parliament. Which most Catholics would agree to be wrong.

Or, to be honest, the point these days is “excuse to have fireworks”!!

The point is that the plotters’ terrorism was motivated by their desire to see a Catholic monarch on the throne. It was a political act, for sure, but bound infinitely tightly to religion. The popular response (what is now ‘Guy Fawkes Night’) was similarly tied to religion.

Between the mid-sixteenth and mid-nineteenth century, for all its increasing toleration of religious nonconformity, British identity was indelibly bound up in Protestantism - and equally, in not-being-Catholic. Linda Colley’s Britons argues this quite convincingly in my view, check it out if you’ve an obliging local university library

 

[DrTaffy]

The point is that the plotters’ terrorism was motivated by their desire to see a Catholic monarch on the throne.

But the reason he is vilified is that he tried to murder the democratically elected Parliament. Had he been Muslim or Buddhist the reaction would have been the same, nor do I believe many modern Catholic priests or theologians would approve of such an act.

Between the mid-sixteenth and mid-nineteenth century, for all its increasing toleration of religious nonconformity, British identity was indelibly bound up in Protestantism - and equally, in not-being-Catholic.

Wrong. The Anglican Church is still Catholic, just no longer bound to the Roman Catholic Church. Being open to as many views as possible is what ‘Catholic’ means.

 

[Murmurs]

But the reason he is vilified is that he tried to murder the democratically elected Parliament. Had he been Muslim or Buddhist the reaction would have been the same, nor do I believe many modern Catholic priests or theologians would approve of such an act.

Wrong. The Anglican Church is still Catholic, just no longer bound to the Roman Catholic Church. Being open to as many views as possible is what ‘Catholic’ means.

I must apologise for derailing yet another thread with my pedantry. However I will insist that I am right (and you are too, but I think we’re making different points!):

He is not vilified now because he is Catholic, of course; however being Catholic, in light of plots or rebellions or risings led by or fuelled by Catholicism, being openly Catholic in England wasn’t a politically advantageous thing in the seventeenth century (as James II found out, though his troubles were bound up with other things too…it was primarily about his religion, as the terms of the Act of Succession which still govern who shall inherit the throne, make abundantly clear).

Had he been Muslim, then in that climate Muslims would have been similarly tarnished in the popular imagination (and if you look at what happened and still happens in the modern West today after 9/11, you will see my point perfectly illustrated)…all Catholics were figures of a degree of suspicion, by their political adherence to lost causes (eg Jacobitism in the end of that century and into the mid-1700s) and it was in part only by long-demonstrated political loyalty that it was sufficiently “safe” to for full ‘emancipation’ in 1828 (which still garnered a considerable degree of opposition). Even in the 1850s it was entirely politic for the Prime Minister (Ld. John Russell) to write an open letter to the Bishop of Durham condemning the “late aggression of the Pope” (in creating Catholic bishops in England).

So no, Fawkes wasn’t vilified because he was Catholic, but he symbolised why Catholics might not be trusted, owing allegiance in the eyes of Protestant Britain to a foreign power, and whose loyalty especially in the initial decades after the Reformation and especially the Elizabethan settlement was suspect owing to the terms of the bull of excommunication pronounced against Elizabeth.

(Not all relations were bad…Archbishop Laud was offered, though sensibly declined, a Cardinal’s hat, which indicates the current ecclesial suspicion with which the Catholic Church views Anglican orders was not always so pronounced, if nothing else. But then Laud was executed essentially for his uncompromisingly bludgeoning High Churchmanship, so maybe the Papacy’s affinity for him isn’t a surprise).

But anyway onto the 2nd point (I realise that I ought before to have written ‘Roman Catholic’ to be clear on the point), the Anglican Church is like the vast majority of reformed or protestant churches, part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Ch. (though I’m aware some would quibble about the exact scope of the Apostolic part). Many High Anglicans (full disclosure: I used to be one), see a particularly close relationship with Rome. However, that is an entirely different matter from how the population of England (or in fact all of Britain except dwindling pockets in Great Britain and of course most people in Ireland), actually perceived themselves (fed partly by state propaganda, but also from lived experience with all the wars fought against Spain and France, the two most powerful Catholic states in Europe) - which is as a Protestant people. Or at least the felicitous via media of the Church of England. What the Church of England is and how the population it served thought about it, are very different things. To a far, far greater extent than on the Continent, even while the Church enjoyed state patronage, the Church of England was (and is, of course), a national Church. So it’s self-proclaimed being not-Roman-Catholic (and also not scarily Calvinist like the Church of Scotland, or the variously Protestant parts of continental Europe), fed into British identity.

 

[ephesians4]

Theocracy is against the teachings of Jesus Christ as He very clearly told us His Kingdom is not of this world. Worldly theocracy is demonic in nature, is the hallmark of false religion and as such is full of human flaws that lead to abuse, torture and death.

Thank God for the people of earlier centuries who recognised the difference.

If Guy Fawkes was hated in times gone by it was not because he was catholic but because he was a terrorist seeking to subvert the will of the people. If he is toasted these days it is not because he was catholic but because he was a rebel who saw the true value of parliament.