Unsurprising that the English history question is the least-guessed answer in an American-dominated quiz website. Which is sad considering British history is American history for most Americans.
However, this figure is likely a serious undercount, as a large proportion of Americans of British descent have a tendency (since the introduction of a new 'American' category in the 2000 census) to identify as simply Americans or if of mixed European ancestry, identify with a more recent and differentiated ethnic group. Eight out of the ten most common surnames in the United States are of British origin.
Plus you have to add Irish Americans for the purposes of the discussion above.
No, you really have to keep the Irish separate. If it weren't for the genocidal policies to give the English wealthy total control of the food supply, there wouldn't be that many Irish in the U.S. All over minor differences in non-Biblical customs within the same religion. As for "British" the only people who call themselves that are the English. It's always a dead giveaway. The Scots, Irish and Welsh are just subjugated by England. Don't call them British, they don't like it.
Sorry, but I'm Welsh and British. The only time I feel subjugated is after the occasional England win in the Six Nations. Don't make sweeping statements on our behalf. We don't like it.
It is surprising to me, but as an admitted/committed Anglophile, I may know almost as much history of the UK as most Britons. For some reason I find the history, culture, and almost everything about the country very interesting - may have lived there in a former life. I think it all started when I read "Green Darkness" as a child. My mother bought the book and left it out. Probably the only "romance" novel I have ever read, but I was interested in a country that was so much older than my own. Been reading about it ever since.
Im the opposite of that again. "recent" history can't seem to hold my attention, there is way too much it. With "recent" I mean the past 400-500 years. The more interesting things happened earlier. I really don't care what all the presidents or members of parliament were for all the countries for the last 50 years or even 1 year.
I guess I am more into general history than indivuals, though I love to learn about (old) civilisations, even in those cases I really don't care who ruled where from when til when.
I do like individuals when it comes to inventions, but not sure you would really class that as historie. Or just individuals with an interesting story, but don't ask me dates! The century someone lived in ok, but not; ruled from '34 - '38
King Chuck getting his head lopped off by 400 years ago isn't super relevant to most American history classes. Yeah, in the long winding road of falling dominoes that is history the English Civil War and the US are definitely related, but that's more of a long-winded academic term paper than a really resonant milestone for American history.
Have a look at the Putney debates and see just how resonant those ideals are with the ones which supposedly drove the American revolution ("every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government").
If you're even more interested you could also look at the (first) Bill of Rights, the Grand Remonstrance, the Provisions of Oxford and the Magna Carta. American ideals of liberty grew from very deep English roots.
Actually, the US Constitution was profoundly influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indigenous federations. There's a lot of research on the subject, but here are a couple of links giving the basics at History.com and JSTOR
Ugh, no. There is a lot of world history to learn. A *lot.* People can't learn all of it. Whether it was Charles/George/Edward/John/Richard that got his head chopped off in the seventeenth century is not something everyone needs to know. Yes, you could trace a line from the English Civil War to the American Revolution if you wanted to, but the fact is that the whole thing is just not that significant to Americans or their history, and no one should feel inadequate for not knowing it, just as no European should feel inadequate for being ignorant of Warren Harding's presidency. It's always good to learn as much history as you can, but frankly, people have other things going on, and the hard truth, whether you like it or not, is that whether an American knows about King Charles's execution will almost certainly have no effect at all on that person's life. So get over yourself, is what I'm trying to say.
I'd argue that the English Revolution/Civil Wars are only one tier below the French Revolution and American Revolution for the development of modern democracy. Understanding the disconnect between the people and King Charles is important, as it led to important philosophical ideas that spread throughout the world. Without Charles losing his head, who knows if John Locke would have written about government legitimacy and natural rights. Who knows if he would have influenced French Renaissance thinkers. Point being, Warren Harding's presidency did not matter in a historical context like the English Revolution. Knowing the king isn't really all that important, but the English Revolution has definitely impacted every democratic country in a major way.
Not all that many Americans are English, far fewer are more than half English. Those who are have ancestors so far removed from now, that it means nothing to them. Sorry, it's been a quarter millennium since the divorce. Our parents are now gone for both of us, the kids have moved off, we live apart and we have a few hundred million other kids with someone else. It's time you move on.
Apparently there are not a lot of people on this site who feed birds or make English Christmas puddings or mincemeat. (Or raise their own cattle and sheep as we do, and render the suet into tallow.)
I assumed fat would be gel-like. And in my mind, suet looks more like tripe I guess (cow stomach) or haggis. I guess it's shredded fat, so it kind of sort of does depending how you chop it up.
Suet gets categorized into the, "I'm never going to eat/buy it, so throw it into the useless stuff I need to remember just so I don't make a faux pas & order it by mistake." Like sweet bread, etc.
Musicals are hardly ever written by one person ("Hamilton" is a rare exception). Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote the music for Phantom but he and Richard Stilgoe wrote the book and Mr. Stilgoe wrote the lyrics with Charles Hart. You should probably change the question to "who wrote the music to Phantom of the Opera?"
It seems grossly unfair that Tim Rice is being ignored. You should accept him as an answer to who wrote the musicals JC and Evita. He did. He wrote the words. Lloyd Weber only did the music.
Absolutely true! Though I knew Andrew Lloyd Webber was the answer being sought, Tim Rice is definitely a legitimate answer as he was the lyricist for both shows cited. If he is not accepted, the question should include the word "composer" in its phrasing.
The correct answer to the question about being knighted is "Sir" and only "Sir". Only men are knighted. There isn't a direct female equivalent of the transitive verb 'to knight', you can only say 'to award a damehood'.
wrong, it is still considered being "Knighted". Yes, men are accpeted into "knighthood" and women are accepted into "Damehood", the process is still considered "Knighting"
As others have stated, Tim Rice is the only correct answer for the clue as given. When you ask who wrote the musical JCS and Evita, Webber does not fit. He wrote the MUSIC. He is not the PLAYWRIGHT. Tim Rice is the playwright. Either change the answer to Rice or change the question.
However, this figure is likely a serious undercount, as a large proportion of Americans of British descent have a tendency (since the introduction of a new 'American' category in the 2000 census) to identify as simply Americans or if of mixed European ancestry, identify with a more recent and differentiated ethnic group. Eight out of the ten most common surnames in the United States are of British origin.
Plus you have to add Irish Americans for the purposes of the discussion above.
Scottish and British here.
I think it's too.. long, intricate/complex/intermingled with other interests (which also change for/against).
And it's so old, that I have a hard time putting faith in tales of what happened.
Basically, the Prime Minister quiz sums it up lol. The Americans don't know how lucky they have it with 46 +250 years & not many neighbors.
But I'm very thankful for them. They've obviously accomplished an incredible amount & done a tremendous job of advancing humanity. What a people.
I guess I am more into general history than indivuals, though I love to learn about (old) civilisations, even in those cases I really don't care who ruled where from when til when.
I do like individuals when it comes to inventions, but not sure you would really class that as historie. Or just individuals with an interesting story, but don't ask me dates! The century someone lived in ok, but not; ruled from '34 - '38
If you're even more interested you could also look at the (first) Bill of Rights, the Grand Remonstrance, the Provisions of Oxford and the Magna Carta. American ideals of liberty grew from very deep English roots.
I assumed fat would be gel-like. And in my mind, suet looks more like tripe I guess (cow stomach) or haggis. I guess it's shredded fat, so it kind of sort of does depending how you chop it up.
Suet gets categorized into the, "I'm never going to eat/buy it, so throw it into the useless stuff I need to remember just so I don't make a faux pas & order it by mistake." Like sweet bread, etc.
Who wrote the musicals *the* "Jesus Christ Superstar" and "Evita"?