22/55, and Dutch. Pretty pleased, but i'll have to admit, i got some of 'm on guessing general British sounding names, or very vague memories (i studied history, but didn't focus on British political history......current one is 'fascinating' though. xD ).
54, stumbled as I began to type Boozy's name and ran out of time. First time I've managed to remember all the early nineteenth century aristos, doubt if I'll achieve that again :-/
Looks like you were both right. And I thought you couldn't get any worse than Boris Johnson. Let's hope the next Prime Minister is a real functioning adult.
It’s unfair, quite how far out of their way those people went, just to make this comment age spectacularly badly! Lol. I mean, it’s not that we’’re all crying out ‘“come back, Boris, all is forgiven,” but between him, the Student Union Thatcher - aka Liz “Pork Markets” Truss - and the dwarf that’s richer than Smaug but without the thick skin - Rishi “Sound the Last Post so I can get the Hell out of here” Sunak, I’m beginning to wonder if they’re combined time in office was all ‘for a laugh.’ They’ve all been paid a billion each by Rishi’s dad-in-law, to do their absolute worst and see how comically badly they can trash the country, for no other purpose than his own personal amusement, and so they could all clean up at the bookmakers. It’s match-fixing at the state level. Thank God they found the most boring man on earth, Sir Keir “Yes I’m a real lawyer” Starmer to clean up, like a farmer after someone let several hungry greyhounds loose on a chicken farm.
English here. I’ve had to retake this a couple of times in recent years, so i’m up to 54/56 now i’ve scraped the rust off. I suspect i’ll be doing all this again soon! One more go to get those remaining 2.
Yeah. From what I hear, she was terrible. Like why does she lower taxes for rich people and not poor people?! The poorer people need the money way more than the rich people who 1 of them makes enough money to feed an entire town for a month!
48/57 on first attempt. (But it was only a couple of months the last time I did this.) 20th Century is easy. In fact I know everyone back to Balfour by rote. Most 19th and over half 18th. I’ll have memorised the rest by lunchtime and then I can start forgetting again!
It never ceases to amuse me that there was a prime minister named Bonar Law. I've read or heard his name so many times, and it never stops being funny to me.
Thank you, The Crown, for helping me get the few points I did get. (In my own defen[s|c]e, I'm American and y'all seem to have a new PM every fourth Tuesday these days. Liz Truss' staff didn't even have to change the bog roll before she was out.)
I just wish it were *actually* someone left-wing. Social-traitors can be more harmful than conservatives, and Starmer sure looks like one of those. There is a deep need for a left-wing opposition to Labour now. All my sympathy goes to unionists, left-wing activists and trans people right now. Keep up the fight!
Starmer's far from perfect but saying he's more harmful than the Tories just because he isn't as left as Corbyn is ridiculous. The Tories were doing everything bad you've listed and more and were moving further right every day.
This has always been the problem with the left, always making perfect the enemy of good. We’ve always been far to keen to factionalise ourselves, such that we never get anything done because they can’t agree on anything and we make our own little grouping the sworn enemy of another grouping which is exactly the same as our own, apart from one tiny detail: “those class traitors have, time and time again shown themselves to be far too Luxemburgist, and should be strung up for abandoning the revolution, the bourgeoise pigs!” - That kinda thing. We can virtue signal all we like, and make nothing better for anyone, or we can coalesce around a broad agreement on the basics that we do agree with, get a government into power , then take up the more narrow points once we’re there. The idea that Tories would be a better than the mainstream Labour Party for union members or trans people is just a joke.
The answer % for Earl of Derby is inflated because you get the point by simply typing "Smith", even though his given name was Edward Smith-Stanley. I suggest tightening the type-ins to require his full given surname.
In case you're wondering why all the early PMs were the Earl of this or the Duke of that, by 1866 there were 30 million people in the UK, but only 1.43 million entitled to vote - male landowners. Another million were added to the voter rolls in 1867 when a law was passed allowing renters as well as property-owning men to vote; this was one of the many small steps of reforms that took place over decades. Finally, in 1928, everyone over 21 years of age, including women, received the right to vote.
54, stumbled as I began to type Boozy's name and ran out of time. First time I've managed to remember all the early nineteenth century aristos, doubt if I'll achieve that again :-/
Most Americans only know three
I AM NOT MOST AMERICANS!
(I am not even American, am 1/2 Filipino 1/2 Chinese)
However, helping me brush up on my history.
The only one that I forgot was Balfour, so not a bad first attempt.
Thanks for your time and effort in creating this quiz.
But essentially all those people only referred to by them being the Duke of Witherchestershirehamington or whatever I had no clue about.
But come on, people like Sir Robert Walpole, John Major and Clement Attlee are really not that hard to recall, are they? ^^
Does that :D even look like a smiley face?