|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 28, 2021 22:28:34 GMT
You miss the entire point.
What some in any party, church or any other organisation (such as the monarchy) thought 70-90 years ago is irrelevant to current politics.
Perhaps because you wish to preserve the current UK state, you don't find it distasteful to link the SNP and Plaid to such folk, but you do when I point out that there were similar people in the Tory and Labour parties back then, simply to demonstrate how ludicrous suggestions of such links are.
Since the Liberal, Tory and Labour parties back then were all supporters of the British Empire and its exploitation of the peoples in it, pretending a moral superiority for any of the parties that supported suppression of self-determination movements would seem somewhat bizarre to any other than imperialists.
Not at all (especially concerning the political motivations for your posts in relation to issues relating to the UK) - peeps of your perception (those who want independence for Scotland above everything else) back in the 1930's would have been much more attracted to Hitler and his ideology; if you actually read my post I am clear that the predominant current form of Scottish nationalisms is not of that ilk. Again, in your desire to denigrate any of the parties that support the continuation of the Union you seek to distort the historic period for your own political purpose - I suggest you read a couple of books on Cripps and the Labour party in the 1930's and 40's, or going further back discussion within the Liberal party in the c19 concerning imperialism. Within the Labour movement there has always been a strong ant-imperialist movement.
For me this is a discussion/issue of historic accuracy rather than one of the current political form of Scottish nationalism.
In regard to Plaid, one of my closest freinds since college has when living in Wales voted Plaid, and when in England voted Labour. I agree with her on virtually everything apart form the issue of keeping the UK intact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2021 22:28:52 GMT
This site offers two possible pronunciations of Tancred. One British, the other Indian. There may be many others, depending on the selection of vowels normal in different languages. www.definitions.net/definition/TancredTancred can enlighten us on their own inspiration but I assumed it was French, as the one I was familiar with was Tancred de Hauteville, Prince of Galilee and a leader of the First Crusade. Although that's probably not everyone's go to. 
A helpful video as a guide. There is a lot on the internet these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 28, 2021 22:30:24 GMT
To suggest that the beliefs of some 70-90 years ago in any organisation reflect current day values is frankly ludicrous. On this point you have my full agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 28, 2021 22:31:28 GMT
I know from previous erudite discussions on our alma mater that we can count several consummate linguistic experts amongst our number. I therefore raise an issue that has been bothering me for a while - how do you pronounce 'Tancred'. Is it 'tank red', 'tankered', 'tank reed', 'tonc red', 'ton red' - so many possibilities? The way I pronounce it is: 'tank red'. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 28, 2021 22:32:14 GMT
Can I suggest the following alternative names for the posting ranks? 
reserved chatty loquacious garrulous ubiquitous Can I add pedantic - arent 2-3 essentially the same? |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 28, 2021 22:32:33 GMT
Thank you for confirming that you are in favour of 'cancelling' anyone with different views from your own. You exemplify why I cannot devote myself to supporting Labour heart and soul - people who have agendas, like yourself, have completely lost touch with most ordinary people. Most people are moderate, middle of road folk, who are mostly concerned with paying the mortgage/rent and putting food on the table for their families. These leftist Islington dinner party agendas have nothing to do with ordinary people - you would do well to remember this. Hi - have you had a sense of humour by-pass? An accusation normally levelled at someone with my views. No, I just took you seriously when obviously I should not have done. Mea culpa. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 28, 2021 22:34:27 GMT
This site offers two possible pronunciations of Tancred. One British, the other Indian. There may be many others, depending on the selection of vowels normal in different languages. www.definitions.net/definition/TancredTancred can enlighten us on their own inspiration but I assumed it was French, as the one I was familiar with was Tancred de Hauteville, Prince of Galilee and a leader of the First Crusade. Although that's probably not everyone's go to.
A helpful video as a guide. There is a lot on the internet these days.
Indeed I was named after Tancred of Hauteville, one of the leaders of the Normans 'in the south'. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 28, 2021 22:37:09 GMT
Lulemon "The politics of the 20's and 30's are extremely complex and not necessarily comparable to those of today. I do find ON's linkage between the Tory party, your position that you vote would consider voting Tory due to your support of the Union and fascism very distasteful."Didn't you notice that it was Graham who was making the ridiculous linkage between the events of the 30's and 40's with the SNP and Plaid today. You didn't find that distasteful? Yet my pointing out that applying his nonsensical approach to his own preferred VI would involve him in the very same process offends you? It should have been obvious, but there is only one person trying to make that connection of a current political party back to those times - and that is Graham. I make no suggestion that current Tories embrace Fascism, but like every organisation that existed then, and still exists today, there are elements of such to be found in their history. That is just as true of major churches like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Catholic Church, as with any political party. To suggest that the beliefs of some 70-90 years ago in any organisation reflect current day values is frankly ludicrous. Actually historically he is on much firmer ground than you are - anti-British politicians such as de Valera (at that time many who were in favour of Scottish nationalism were inspired by him) and many Indian nationalist were favourable to Hitler (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). De Valera actually sent a commiseration telegram to Germany on Hitler’s death ffs. FDR (no supporter of British Imperialism) despised de Velera for his stance during the war, and recognised that the British were fundamentally different to the Nazis. I did pick up in your post more than a hint of linking Labour and Tory parties to fascism - which I thought historically was more of a distortion. For Tory politicians in the period they were very much faced by two dual evils - Fascism and Communism. Also the number of left wing politicians that really got it wrong as far as Stalin was concerned is endless. If you are going to cite one British political party that was consistently anti-fascist from start to finish then it’s the Labour party! As I mentioned in a previous post current SNP policy is currently more of the ‘liberal’ form. Anecdotally most of the SNP voters I now have core beliefs are not that far from my own. But there is no guarantee that in 20 years’ time the type of nationalism espoused by the SNP will be the same, especially if Independence is obtained. If in 20 years-time the Labour party does still exist I am 100% sure it will remain anti-fascist. Can you remind me whether or not the Labour Party was consistently anti Stalinst in the 1930s? My grasp of history is not as firm as yours. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2021 22:39:13 GMT
Can I suggest the following alternative names for the posting ranks?
reserved chatty - readily engaging in informal talk. loquacious - tending to talk a great deal garrulous - excessively talkative ubiquitous Can I add pedantic - arent 2-3 essentially the same? I think there is a rising nuance to it. I had taciturn and verbose on the bench. |
|
|
|
Post by catfuzz on Dec 28, 2021 22:41:05 GMT
This site offers two possible pronunciations of Tancred. One British, the other Indian. There may be many others, depending on the selection of vowels normal in different languages. www.definitions.net/definition/TancredAlso found this (from browsing the site you suggested which suggests an Italian element: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tancred,_Prince_of_Galilee?wprov=sfsi1 Meaning ‘tan-cred’ may be on the money! EDIT: I see in my time perusing that Tancred has pronounced his pronunciation. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 28, 2021 22:43:34 GMT
Lululemon
"In regard to Plaid, one of my closest freinds since college has when living in wales voted Plaid, and whem in England voted Labour. I agree with her on virtually everything apart form the issue of keeping the UK intact."
While I would probably vote Green if I lived in England, if there was a reasonable chance of getting them to a position where they might get elected - even under the daft FPTP system - I imagine that in most constituencies, I'd vote Labour - as I used to do in Scotland.
I understand that there are many people who have an emotional attachment to keeping the UK intact, while others make different arguments for that position.
Neither stance on that binary issue is illegitimate. As in most issues, there are arguments to be made on both sides. It rather depends what one's priorities are.
What always seems foolish, however, since the question is whether Scotland should be an independent state or whether the current UK should remain intact, is to attach emotionally loaded labels. Either position can be termed nationalist or unionist.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 28, 2021 22:48:59 GMT
You miss the entire point.
What some in any party, church or any other organisation (such as the monarchy) thought 70-90 years ago is irrelevant to current politics.
Perhaps because you wish to preserve the current UK state, you don't find it distasteful to link the SNP and Plaid to such folk, but you do when I point out that there were similar people in the Tory and Labour parties back then, simply to demonstrate how ludicrous suggestions of such links are.
Since the Liberal, Tory and Labour parties back then were all supporters of the British Empire and its exploitation of the peoples in it, pretending a moral superiority for any of the parties that supported suppression of self-determination movements would seem somewhat bizarre to any other than imperialists.
Not at all (especially concerning the political motivations for your posts in relation to issues relating to the UK) - peeps of your perception (those who want independence for Scotland above everything else) back in the 1930's would have been much more attracted to Hitler and his ideology; if you actually read my post I am clear that the predominant current form of Scottish nationalisms is not of that ilk. Again, in your desire to denigrate any of the parties that support the continuation of the Union you seek to distort the historic period for your own political purpose - I suggest you read a couple of books on Cripps and the Labour party in the 1930's and 40's, or going further back discussion within the Liberal party in the c19 concerning imperialism. Within the Labour movement there has always been a strong ant-imperialist movement. For me this is a discussion/issue of historic accuracy rather than one of the current political form of Scottish nationalism. In regard to Plaid, one of my closest freinds since college has when living in wales voted Plaid, and whem in England voted Labour. I agree with her on virtually everything apart form the issue of keeping the UK intact. An interesting suggestion from you that somebody who supports Scottish independence above anything else would have been attracted to Hitler and fascism. By extension, you would presumably agree that British nationalists who put Brexit above everything else are of a similar frame of mind? |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 28, 2021 22:52:25 GMT
I know from previous erudite discussions on our alma mater that we can count several consummate linguistic experts amongst our number. I therefore raise an issue that has been bothering me for a while - how do you pronounce 'Tancred'. Is it 'tank red', 'tankered', 'tank reed', 'tonc red', 'ton red' - so many possibilities? There is of course the promising ‘Tan cred’ which personally feels right to me. There is a histographical argument about the emergence of the Tan cred's. Some have it that they first arose from the marshlands of the northern banks of the Thames estuary, whilst others suggest the eastern uplands of Cheshire. Supporters of the former point to the easy access to ports where imports of bleach and white leather are recorded in medieval times. The promoters of the northern theory suggest the dairy lands of south and west Cheshire gave rise to supplies of good quality leather and the fledgling chemical industries around Widnes with associated pack horse trading routes to 'Ull led to inadvertent bleach spillages along the way, turning walking clogs and cattle hides white and enterprising maidens washed their hair in the resulting upland streams. Neither theory satisfactorily explains the orange skin tone, but Widnes residents have long believed in the power of Tango. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 28, 2021 22:55:38 GMT
I know from previous erudite discussions on our alma mater that we can count several consummate linguistic experts amongst our number. I therefore raise an issue that has been bothering me for a while - how do you pronounce 'Tancred'. Is it 'tank red', 'tankered', 'tank reed', 'tonc red', 'ton red' - so many possibilities? The way I pronounce it is: 'tank red'. So either something to do with farming vehicle fuel or Soviet T38's or similar. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 28, 2021 22:58:40 GMT
Lulemon "The politics of the 20's and 30's are extremely complex and not necessarily comparable to those of today. I do find ON's linkage between the Tory party, your position that you vote would consider voting Tory due to your support of the Union and fascism very distasteful."Didn't you notice that it was Graham who was making the ridiculous linkage between the events of the 30's and 40's with the SNP and Plaid today. You didn't find that distasteful? Yet my pointing out that applying his nonsensical approach to his own preferred VI would involve him in the very same process offends you? It should have been obvious, but there is only one person trying to make that connection of a current political party back to those times - and that is Graham. I make no suggestion that current Tories embrace Fascism, but like every organisation that existed then, and still exists today, there are elements of such to be found in their history. That is just as true of major churches like the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Catholic Church, as with any political party. To suggest that the beliefs of some 70-90 years ago in any organisation reflect current day values is frankly ludicrous. Yes, but you could make your points in a less antagonistic way. |
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Dec 28, 2021 23:01:28 GMT
On looking in again, it seems I inadvertently set off a spat with my comments on the Truss interview on R4 W@One. I realise that I wasn`t the main offender, but I feel now that I was on vulnerable ground given that Liz so divides opinion.
When I saw Graham`s remark, I wasn`t offended by a word often used for ladies of a certain character. But I wondered if it was true - if not, but a made-up criticism by a political opponent, then I would have grumbled hard at Graham. It`s a pity that trigguy is no longer with us, living in the Cambridge / SW Norfolk area, who could have confirmed or corrected.
My opinion on LM was formed by her poor performance when running DEFRA 2014-16. Maybe this was no worse than Leadson following-on, who was hopelessly out of her depth there, whereas George Eustice meantime is able and active, not that I like some of his policies.
Truss especially annoys me by having no concern for the many hard-working farmers who stand to lose their family farms because of her doctrinaire Right-wing policies and/or her ambitions for being PM - she chooses what policies will appeal to the far-Right Tory membership regardless.
My priorities in life are conservation and trying to help deserving minorities, of which farmers are a main one. This afternoon I was diverted from UKPR by corresponding with a conservationist in Mongolia who had requested a short paper I had written decades back about a rare plant in NE Scotland. Earlier I had thought some exchanges here had become trivial and hardly worth the time scrolling past.
Which was why I turned to BBC politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 28, 2021 23:02:58 GMT
hireton
Not an easy question to answer- but essentially the 'right-wing' union element of the party and leadership, epitomised by Bevin, were essentially consistently opposed/suspicious of the Communist throughout the 20/30/40's. In 1944, it was this element of the Labour Party in the wartime coalition that was most in favour of supporting the Polish uprising and suspicious of Soviet intentions.
Elements of the left-wing intelligentsia, such as the Webb’s and Laski were always prone to a more pro-Soviet position, but them others on the libertarian left, such as George Orwell (experience of the Spanish Civil War) were very anti-Stalin. In terms of the rank and file, as with attitudes to Germany, tended to reflect current affairs. So prior to '38, there was support for the United Front, after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact obviously views on the Soviet Union took a nose dive - but then after we were allies they shifted again.
A distinction between Labour and the Tory from 1935 onwards, was that Labour increasingly viewed Nazi Germany as the threat (and moved away from their pacifist stance), which made them more open to seeing the USSR as a possbile alliw. But that does not mean that they were all taken in by 'Uncle Joe'.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 28, 2021 23:08:06 GMT
I also think your analysis of Labour being a "weak party" is a salutary one and I must now look more closely at this assessment of the opposition. I mean if you're noticing it in Texas, crikey, it's a charge that needs to be taken very seriously. Bad news obviously travels far. Forgive me for my attempt at an Americanism here but you stay safe there Turk now won't you. In the good old U S of A. I seem to remember Socal liberals views from across the pond were widely welcomed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2021 23:12:02 GMT
@tw I did add "economically" tea party to my comment. I doubt she would be so extreme on the Tea Party social issues agenda but she does seem to want to maximise free trade at any cost as an ideological thing without regards to the consequences. I meant 'economically' as well - bit further to the 'right' than my preference but certainly not Tea Party[1]. On 'social issues' then she is certainly not extreme and as Minister for Women and Equalities has IMO done a good job. She is certainly more of the 'free trade' view than likes of Eustice or Lexit view but perhaps you could post specifics to back up what is perhaps a twitterverse 'theory' WRT to 'she does seem to want to maximise free trade at any cost as an ideological thing without regards to the consequences'
You are of course entitled to your opinion but is it based on fact or the views of those who, for whatever reason, don't like Truss and are making stuff up? Also how would her (post 2016) view on UK-EU trade deals fit that view or is it another case of 'Schrodinger' where this time she is both a free trade ideologist and someone happy to have imposed higher trade barriers between UK and EU? [1] See their views on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement and by all means highlight the evidence for where she has agreed with those views. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 28, 2021 23:14:15 GMT
why? I was way too young to vote for Thatcher but wouldn't have, I didn't vote for May irrespective of the fact she was a woman. Someone's gender is completely irrelevant (as is sexual preference or the colour of their skin) when it comes to their capability/desirability of them being PM. Possibly to you, but I wonder if it might have some effect of enticing other female voters back to the Tories? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 28, 2021 23:19:12 GMT
However he has had the at least temporary good fortune to be the receiver of a fed up population who 2yrs into Covid are very sensitive to anything from politicians that break the rules even if they have ignored those rules themselves. I think exactly what voters might think about this is important. if they think the politicians simply broke the rules foolishly, then they will forgive them. If they think the politicians broke those rules believing them to be pointless, then more and more are going to permanently switch away.
As ever, what 90% of the population think doesnt matter. 1/3 wont ever vote and maybe half will vote for their normal party regardless. Its always the swing voters who matter. Its not in the least clear what they think.
Data is rolling in that the government once again cried wolf over this latest wave of covid. People do eventually realise they have been deceived time after time.
If anyone cried wolf (in England) it was the scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 28, 2021 23:31:54 GMT
An interesting suggestion from you that somebody who supports Scottish independence above anything else would have been attracted to Hitler and fascism.
Sorry, but thats not what I have been saying in the context of today’s politics - I agree with ON, the current form of Scottish nationalism is on the polar opposite side of the spectrum to fascism. What I was doing was more attempting to ‘correct' was the perception of the political environment of the '20's and 30's, and my usual point of flagging ON's bias in relation to the UK/Britishness (which he legitimately counters in regards to myself).
@ ON - oh my support for the continuation of the Union is virtually 100% emotional - and I assume your support for independence is similarly emotional in essence.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Dec 28, 2021 23:35:36 GMT
]If anyone cried wolf (in England) it was the scientists. SAGE have always said they dont make decisions, they simply give advice when asked. It seems likely Dominic Cummings pushed the change of strategy, based upon what he said to parliament. He accused the health minister of blocking the introduction of test and trace, which kinda implies he was pushing it. But for whatever reason they switched to suppression instead of managed spread. Having chosen that and embarked upon a propaganda campaign to convince everyone it was the right thing to do, it then became politically impossible to change course. Its looking increasingly likely that omicron, far from being the latest threat is in fact an effective vaccine against covid in general and likely to end the epidemic. So the sooner everyone catches it the better. That attempting to slow it is simply costing lives lost to delta infections before omicron eradicates delta. The real elephant in the room is that had the original outbreak been allowed to run its course we could have had an omicron equivalent last christmas inctead of this. A whole year saved. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Dec 28, 2021 23:37:47 GMT
Lululemon I couldn't envisage any circumstances where voting Tory would be an option. Even where the local incumbent MP was someone like Dr Sarah Wollaston I would rather vote for a progressive party alternative and wait for the decent Tory to come to their senses and leave the tory party like the aforementioned Doctor. Same here. I will vote for the Anti Tory candidate. If that's Lib Dem or Green fine. I would vote independent as long as it wasn't a disaffected/disqualified Tory in disguise or an England first type candidate. I'm afraid after 10 years of ideologically fuelled austerity, some of it also embracing idologically fuelled Brexiting, followed by 2 years of totally amoral me me me Johsonianism, if we don't get the Tories out in 2024 we can say goodbye to our public services and tradition of social concern for the elderly, poor, sick and disabled. It's vital to me so an anti-Tory tactical vote it is. We gave up our concern for the elderly, poor, sick, and disabled a long time ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2021 23:57:11 GMT
If anyone cried wolf (in England) it was the scientists. 1. Spring'20: SAGE were going for 'herd immunity' and CON HMG followed the scientists (and the flip flop that followed) 2. Alpha (into Delta) wave: SAGE wanted earlier lockdown and CON HMG ignored the scientists (even though by then we knew vaccines would be able to do the 'heavy lifting') 3. 'Exit Wave': SAGE/others thought 'freedom day' was 'reckless' and CON HMG ignored them and got on with it ('Summer experiment' based on high levels of vaccine immunity) 4. 'Omicron Wave': jury still out but I'm increasing my cautious optimism that, like the 'Exit Wave', CON HMG will be proven correct to ignore the scientists[1] (or at least the SAGE advice as there is a wide spectrum of opinion and sadly SAGE might be more interested in covering their own arses into a public inquiry and are not tasked with considering broader impact on the socio-economy) We'll know soon but it's looking like SAGE were right only 1 out of 4 times (dismal track record) and since vaccine roll out then 100% success rate for CON HMG by ignoring the SAGE advice. PS Relevance for the main thread will be in the polling as folks have believed CON HMG were under reacting to Omicron (see various polling[2]) so if/when it turns out they were not then perhaps a small boost to CON VI (from some CON'19 DKs 'coming home'?) [1] Plan B was fair enough. Probably helped 'awareness' and increased uptake of boosters but has certainly caused some socio-economic damage. Given what we knew at the time then I'm not going to adopt 'Captain Hindsight' and say that was wrong [2] EG |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 29, 2021 0:05:06 GMT
]If anyone cried wolf (in England) it was the scientists. The real elephant in the room is that had the original outbreak been allowed to run its course we could have had an omicron equivalent last christmas inctead of this. A whole year saved. That makes no sense. This is a worldwide pandemic, and some countries (e.g. Sweden) took a different approach to the norm. What the UK government did would have had little to no effect on the worldwide situation, and hence the emergence of new variants. But this conversation belongs in the Covid thread as it has no relevance to polling. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 29, 2021 0:08:52 GMT
Mercian "Yes, but you could make your points in a less antagonistic way." Offa would not have shared your view that antagonism towards Mercia should be but gently rebutted.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2021 0:11:20 GMT
A more relevant poll for previous post is YG's tracker: COVID-19: government handling and confidence in health authorities
today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/03/17/perception-government-handling-covid-19If you select UK[1] (and England makes up vast majority of UK) then most recent finding (16Dec) was just 31%, tied with the lows from the 'mistake' of Autumn'20 into Jan'21 If you then take a look at CON VI you'll note it follows the 'government handling of Covid' polling (although Boris's 'own goals' have made the current drop in CON VI larger than the drop in late 2020). CON VI recovered into Spring-Summer'21 due to 'vaccine bounce' then 'Freedom Day' and it could be 'Déjà Vu All Over Again' in 2022?!? (other possibilities are still possible of course but above is at least a 'plausible scenario') en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary [1] Quite the roller coaster for other countries and I expect (but haven't checked) if that correlates to VI rise/falls for incumbent govt in those polities. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 29, 2021 0:38:28 GMT
turk I agree that Truss is a match for Starmer. But it seems the public think differently. www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/27/boris-johnson-a-drag-on-tories-and-sunak-would-do-better-poll-shows27/12/21, reporting on Opinium: "As well as Johnson, Opinium asked people how they would vote under three further scenarios: if Sunak, Liz Truss or Michael Gove led the Tories – and in each scenario assumed that Starmer remained Labour’s leader. Truss is far less popular with the wider public than with Conservative activists, the polling suggests. The latest survey of party members conducted by the Conservative Home website showed her as their favourite successor to Johnson, with Sunak second. However, Opinium’s figures suggest that she would do even worse than Johnson, and far worse than Sunak, and lead the Tories to a crushing 16-point defeat." I would treat these popularity polls with some scepticism. Cameron wasn't too popular initially but he gained it over time, and Truss can do the same. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 29, 2021 0:40:58 GMT
The way I pronounce it is: 'tank red'. So either something to do with farming vehicle fuel or Soviet T38's or similar. No, Tancred de Hauteville, a Norman knight and lord. |
|
