Do you really have to ask what that means? I know you're Welsh but I would have thought you'd have heard of St George !
In 1603, James VI of Scotland inherited the English and Irish thrones (as James I), thereby uniting the crownsof England, Scotland and Ireland (which remained separate states) in a personal union.[22] On 12 April 1606, a new flag to represent this regal union between England and Scotland was specified in a royal decree, according to which the flag of England (a red cross on a white background, known as St George's Cross), and the flag of Scotland (a white saltire on a blue background, known as the saltire or St Andrew's Cross), would be joined together,[8] forming the flag of Great Britain and first union flag: By the King: Whereas, some differences hath arisen between Our subjects of South and North Britaine travelling by Seas, about the bearing of their Flagges: For the avoiding of all contentions hereafter. We have, with the advice of our Council, ordered: That from henceforth all our Subjects of this Isle and Kingdome of Great Britaine, and all our members thereof, shall beare in their main-toppe the Red Crosse, commonly called St George's Crosse, and the White Crosse, commonly called St Andrew’s Crosse, joyned together according to the forme made by our heralds, and sent by Us to our Admerall to be published to our Subjects: and in their fore-toppe our Subjects of South Britaine shall weare the Red Crosse onely as they were wont, and our Subjects of North Britaine in their fore-toppe the White Crosse onely as they were accustomed.[28] Great Britain Name The King's Colours or Great Union Flag Use National flag Proportion 3:5 Adopted 1606–1707 (ships at sea) 1707–1801 (England and Scotland) Design The Cross of St George over the Cross of St Andrew This royal flag was, at first, to be used only at sea on civil and military ships of both England and Scotland, whereas land forces continued to use their respective national banners.[29] In 1634,King Charles I restricted its use to the royal ships.[17] After theActs of Union 1707, the flag gained a regularised status as "the ensign armorial of the Kingdom of Great Britain", the newly created state. It was then adopted by land forces as well, although the blue field used on land-based versions more closely resembled that of the blue of the flag of Scotland. Various shades of blue have been used in the saltire over the years. The ground of the current Union Flag is a deep "navy" blue (Pantone 280), which can be traced to the colour used for theBlue Ensign of the Royal Navy's historic "Blue Squadron". (Dark shades of colour were used on maritime flags on the basis of durability.) In 2003 a committee of the Scottish Parliamentrecommended that the flag of Scotland use a lighter "royal" blue, (Pantone 300). (The Office of the Lord Lyon does not detail specific shades of colour for use in heraldry.) A thin white stripe, or fimbriation, separates the red cross from the blue field, in accordance with heraldry's rule of tincture where colours (like red and blue) must be separated from each other by metals (like white, i.e.argent or silver). The blazon for the old union flag, to be compared with the current flag, is azure, the cross saltire of St Andrew argent surmounted by the Cross of St George gules, fimbriated of the second. Wales had no explicit recognition in the Union Jack as it had been a part of the Kingdom of England since being annexed by Edward I of England in 1282 and its full integration by the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, and was therefore represented by the flag of England.[29] Protectorate Jack, 1658–60 The Kingdom of Ireland, which had existed as a personal union with England since 1541, was likewise unrepresented in the original versions of the Union Jack.[29] However, the flag of The Protectoratefrom 1658 to 1660 was inescutcheoned with the arms of Ireland. These were removed at the Restoration, because Charles II disliked them.[30] The original flag appears in the canton of the Commissioners' Ensign of the Northern Lighthouse Board. This is the only contemporary official representation of the pre-1801 Union Jack in the United Kingdom[31] and can be seen flying from their George Street headquarters in Edinburgh. This version of the Union Jack is also shown in the canton of the Grand Union Flag (also known as the Congress Flag, the First Navy Ensign, the Cambridge Flag, and the Continental Colours), the first widely usedflag of the United States, slowly phased out after 1777. Lord Howe's action, or the Glorious First of June, painted in 1795, shows a Union flying from HMS Queen Charlotte on the "Glorious First of June" 1794. The actual flag, preserved in the National Maritime Museum, is a cruder approximation of the proper specifications; this was common in 18th and early 19th-century flags.[32][33] The flag is also flown beside Customs House in Loftus Street, Sydney, to mark the approximate location at which Captain Phillip first raised the Union Jack, and claimed New South Wales in 1788. On the plaque it is referred to as the "Jack of Queen Anne". The British Army's flag is the Union Jack, but in 1938, a "British Army Non-Ceremonial Flag" was devised, featuring a lion on crossed blades with the St Edward's Crown on a red background. This is not the equivalent of the ensigns of the other armed services, but is used at recruiting and military or sporting events, when the army needs to be identified but the reverence and ceremony due to the regimental flags and the Union Jack would be inappropriate.
That's a bit rude for you, Anthony Welsh, Irish, Scots, English, there are plenty of people claiming to be that that think St George is the Pub down the road.
Armandii, the evidence comes from Government figures:- CITIES and towns with high numbers of young immigrants are recording the highest birth rates in Britain, say new figures. The above quote came from The Daily Express, together with supporting figures. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/606926/Number-migrant-babies-born-UK-SOAR-new-record-high The birth rate among women born in Pakistan but living in the UK is three times higher than that among British-born women, the figures will show. The above came from The Daily Telegraph quoting Government figures http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571969/Britains-highest-birth-rates-among-migrants.html I am not trying to make any contentious remarks. I am simply trying to point out a couple of self evident facts. 1) That if you have uncontrolled immigration, from any source, then you are in danger of having an uncontrolled increase in your population. 2) And that over a period of time an uncontrolled increase in the population each year could result in the total population becoming so big as to cause serious problems.
Agreed, but you seemed to be indirectly focusing on immigrants because of their faith and yet the Roman Catholic Church is still discouraging it's members from contraception with the UK and outside it. With all due respect, the Daily Express is down there with the Sun and Mirror for factual evidence and I wouldn't even use it for my Cat's litter trays. I don't, however, disagree with your logic about over population in the world and the strain on vital resources, or that we need to have control over our borders. However, I don't agree with the pointing of fingers at sectors of any population while not taking into account the "sins" of those pointing the finger.
I understand that, Anthony, but it did sound somewhat rude and, to be honest, somewhat patronising and disdainful.......which, again, I know was not meant.
Armandii - sorry I have altered my post a bit, though you comment above was referring to a earlier post. The Daily Express, and I have added a quote from the Daily Telegraph were both quoting Government figures. Their comments were not their own opinion. However my own position is that I have no interest in the race or religion of immigrants. I simply wanted to point out that any uncontrolled increase in the UK's population, from whatever source, is likely to cause problems in the long run. Its a total population problem - not an immigrant problem per se.
@clueless1 As you know, I was travelling in Bhutan earlier this year. It's one of the few countries that has Buddhism as its national religion and 75% of the country is Buddhist. Their religion does not ban them from harming another being. The majority of the population eat meat. During the time I was there I discussed religion with quite a number of them. They have a different viewpoint on life from that of a lot of other Buddhist and their children are also trained in martial arts. This is of a necessity because of continually being invaded by Tibetans - also around 75% Buddhists. Interestingly the Bhutanese designed their national costume in order to be able to distinguish their own people from the invading Tibetans.
Armandii - The part of the post I removed was about the troubles between Egypt and Sudan over their water- which was true but not relevant. Otherwise I was simply trying to put over some facts, and by the way my best friend is an Arab (and Muslim) immigrant surgeon. The point I was making is that :- 1) The UK population is projected to increase and we have no control over it. 2) I did commented that part of that increase is due to the higher birth rate of immigrants shown above - the graph comes from the Office for National statistics. However the exact cause is irrelevant, its the size of the increase that matters. 3) And that one day we are going to wake up and realise that we have a serious case of overpopulation - and everyone will say they never saw it coming.
I have visited a Buddhist temple here a few times. Had lunch with the community. Was impressed with how calming the ambience was. The experience gave me the inspiration to dump my "confirmed "religion and live with my self imposed morals and ethics. I'm a happy person. Oh how I wish I could vote. I'd be an outer. I cannot imagine if this situation were a "NAU", a North American Union. We Canucks would have to withstand policies from Mexico and possibly Trump. On far too many issues totaĺly frightening. I shall be hoping that tomorrow will be a day that makes the majority here happy. Gardeners are good people.
You have got me Googling now Armandii . I am still editing as I Google more. I came across these items below. They were from a Daily Mail site quoting official EU figures. I can't find the detail behind these figures, but this EU site is consistant with the graph and shows Britain's population overtaking Germany. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migration-projections Britain's population is set to soar by twice as much as the rest of the European Union combined over the next 65 years, official Brussels forecasts reveal. By 2080 there will be an extra 21 million people living in the UK - taking the population to 85 million. Over the same period Brussels expects the EU's population to have increased by just 11 million to reach 520 million. The population boom will leave Britain by far the most populous country in Europe - overtaking France and Germany in just 22 years, at which time the EU expects 76 million to be living here. The above table from the office of National Statistics suggests an increase in population of 10 million by 2039, which fits in with the above graph. I find it a bit scary. I don't think my suggestion that Britain will one day wake up to a population of 90 million was so far out.
