Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Who won???

Expand Messages
  • Sean
    Peter, There is a joke that runs amongst 1812 reenactors with regards to the issue of who won. It goes - The Canadians think they won, the Americans KNOW they
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 19, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Peter,

      There is a joke that runs amongst 1812 reenactors with regards to the issue
      of who won. It goes - The Canadians think they won, the Americans KNOW they
      won and the British don't know it even happened. In a lot of ways this
      statement is very true. Canadians think they won but never say anything
      because we are too polite to step on anyones toes or make offence. The
      Americans, regardless of historical fact are convinced they won; after all
      how could they lose to a bunch of backwoods northerners like us. The
      British were too busy with Bonaparte to really consider Canada as more than
      a minor operation.

      Unfortunately this misinformation is a part of our national history and
      until we stand and say something it will continue in such a fashion. Canada
      has to learn to stand up proudly behind its soldiers. History has proven
      that we have a damned fine and very effective armed forces. Sometimes
      Canadians have even, on a one for one basis, been considered as the best in
      the world. America has to learn that it's okay to say they lost this one.
      Everything returned to the status quo in the end. America thought it would
      be a roll over, finished quickly and England would have to listen to them.
      But the American army at the beginning of the war was ill-prepared to face
      our forces, small though they were. In the first year and a half of the war
      America had a few very embarassing losses to small numbers. They were
      out-maneuvered and out fought at every turn, but in the later war period
      they improved tactics and were soon matching the British with win for win.
      WE STILL WON THOUGH.

      It's a point of pride for us. A victory which formed a nation an started us
      on the road to having influence in England. Europeans are often heard
      saying why do you care Canadians and Americans are the same aren't they,
      but that would be like saying to an Irishman that they were the same as the
      English. Boy would tempers flare with that one.

      We are to very different people who happen to be able to get along fairly
      well despite certain differences and one of the very reasons we are
      different is because of the War of 1812.

      I can't really give exact numbers on the breakdown of War of 1812
      participants so I won't try. I'm sure there is someone out there with some
      precise figure that they would be happy to divulge.




      Cpl. Sean Hirst
      Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
      *********************************
      945-0591
    • IX Regt.
      Yes, life can be a real bitch, imagine have a neighbour like that on a personal basis! DUCK and RUN :) ... -- IX Regt.
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 19, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, life can be a real bitch, imagine have a neighbour like that on a
        personal basis! DUCK and RUN :)
        >From: Sean <shirst@...>
        >
        >Peter,
        >
        >There is a joke that runs amongst 1812 reenactors with regards to the issue
        >of who won. It goes - The Canadians think they won, the Americans KNOW they
        >won and the British don't know it even happened. In a lot of ways this
        >statement is very true. Canadians think they won but never say anything
        >because we are too polite to step on anyones toes or make offence. The
        >Americans, regardless of historical fact are convinced they won; after all
        >how could they lose to a bunch of backwoods northerners like us. The
        >British were too busy with Bonaparte to really consider Canada as more than
        >a minor operation.
        >
        >Unfortunately this misinformation is a part of our national history and
        >until we stand and say something it will continue in such a fashion. Canada
        >has to learn to stand up proudly behind its soldiers. History has proven
        >that we have a damned fine and very effective armed forces. Sometimes
        >Canadians have even, on a one for one basis, been considered as the best in
        >the world. America has to learn that it's okay to say they lost this one.
        >Everything returned to the status quo in the end. America thought it would
        >be a roll over, finished quickly and England would have to listen to them.
        >But the American army at the beginning of the war was ill-prepared to face
        >our forces, small though they were. In the first year and a half of the war
        >America had a few very embarassing losses to small numbers. They were
        >out-maneuvered and out fought at every turn, but in the later war period
        >they improved tactics and were soon matching the British with win for win.
        >WE STILL WON THOUGH.
        >
        >It's a point of pride for us. A victory which formed a nation an started us
        >on the road to having influence in England. Europeans are often heard
        >saying why do you care Canadians and Americans are the same aren't they,
        >but that would be like saying to an Irishman that they were the same as the
        >English. Boy would tempers flare with that one.
        >
        >We are to very different people who happen to be able to get along fairly
        >well despite certain differences and one of the very reasons we are
        >different is because of the War of 1812.
        >
        >I can't really give exact numbers on the breakdown of War of 1812
        >participants so I won't try. I'm sure there is someone out there with some
        >precise figure that they would be happy to divulge.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Cpl. Sean Hirst
        >Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
        >*********************************
        >945-0591
        >
        >
        >
        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >New hobbies? New interests? Sign up for a new ONElist community.
        >http://www.onelist.com
        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square
        >miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square
        >miles...

        --
        IX Regt.
      • Paul W. Schulz
        Sean, I usually find that I am in agreement with many of the things that you have written but in this case I am wondering if you cracked your head coming out
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 20, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Sean,
          I usually find that I am in agreement with many of the things that you
          have written but in this case I am wondering if you cracked your head coming
          out of the car today. This will be a first, hearing someone complain that
          those on different sides in debate are conducting themselves as gentlemen is
          a new one for me. If you would rather change the tone of the conversations
          I'm sure that can be accommodated. As far as defending national pride you'll
          find that I can be about as salty as they come. In fact you may find I can
          be the nastiest person you ever met on the issue, full of more vinegar than
          rancid wine. I guess that's what comes of loosing friends in the defense of
          a flag that was bought in blood rather than issued by a government divesting
          itself of territory it no longer wanted.
          As far as the Canadians winning the war I'll go along with them as 20th
          century winners, but not 19th century winners. The inhabitants of Canada
          were British, not Canadian. No Canadian identity existed before the war. You
          had a hodge podge of French, American immigrants and ARW refugees, in many
          cases all with differing agendas. That would be why Brock initially did not
          trust the militia and you had those problems with Mr. Wilcox. After the war
          they were all firmly British, having fought for a common cause and from that
          developed the sense of Canadian Nationalism seen today. Which still varies
          from providence to providence.
          As far as who won a Lundy's Lane....well let me help you with that one
          to, lest you grope around in the dark forever. The US won guys, sorry. The
          winner of a battle (at least in the tactical sense) is the side left in
          possession of the field. They don't have to homestead, just keep it and not
          be chased away. The Battle started for the US as a recognizance in force
          with the major British action PLANNED for the other side of the river. This
          action was recalled due to the rapidly changing situation on Canadian soil,
          The British DID NOT hold the strategic ground at the end of the battle and I
          defy you to pull up documented proof that they did. The US retired due to
          unavailable water making the ground ultimately unsuitable for a relocation
          of the camp. The US also retired when they damned well pleased, and in very
          good order and at a slow UNMOLESTED pace. Captains Glews much recorded
          charge did not take place at the end of the battle but in the middle of it.
          The British retired OFF the field and up Lundy's Lane leaving two companies
          to monitor US activities. Even these soldiers did not keep close enough
          contact to detect the US redeployment until after sun up. The forces that
          Mr. Cruikshank mentions in his much discredited accounts as an American rear
          guard was nothing more than a work party assigned to remove the pieces on
          the day following the battle and the British did not occupy any ground until
          the day after. To call this a British victory is kinda like sayin' on your
          why to the mail box you found $100.00 (US currency of course) and coming
          back in to the house and sayin' "Hey, look I earned $100.00 bucks today." It
          doesn't was and it sure aint consistent with the facts. If you have any
          further questions I reffer you to "Where right and Glory Lead," by Donald
          Graves Appendix C beginning on pg 265. Enjoy it its a good book.
          Don't get me wrong I am in no way detracting from the conduct or bravery
          of the Crown Forces in any action in any theater of the period, but let's
          call a spade a spade, get your facts straight.
          Speaking of spades how's that for a shovel full of dirt. Now don't you
          think its better when we pull a punch or two and act like gentlemen. Jim
          makes one of the finest points I've yet read on this electronic BB. Try to
          look at things from a 19th Century point of view not at what resulted in our
          20th century world. As a side note Jim I am indebted to you for another
          insightful look in to the hobby and the 19th century mind. With my
          dissertation about Rob's question a couple of days ago I was attempting to
          list the US point of view and aims from a 19th century perspective not sugar
          coat anything in a 20th century era of P/C. Unlike some of the crap I read
          on this rag from north of the border I am not trying to refight the War of
          1812, just reenact it and keep the memory of brave men alive.
          Paul Schulz
          4th US Rt. of Inf
          Snelling's Co.
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Sean <shirst@...>
          To: WarOf1812@onelist.com <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
          Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 10:31 AM
          Subject: [WarOf1812] Who won???


          >From: Sean <shirst@...>
          >
          >Everyone seems to think it necessary to sugar coat their answer so that no
          >one gets offended and while I don't want to make enemies I have no problem
          >with stating exactly what I think without disclaimers. There was one clear
          >and obvious winner in the War of 1812... the Canadians! We one because we
          >fly a Canadian flag, have a Canadian national anthem, Canadian (play)
          >money, our very own wonderful parliament with all of its problems, taxes, a
          >national debt, etc, etc. It may have been considered a minor occurrance on
          >the world stage but to us it could be argued to be the most important
          >defining point in our nation's history. A small number of men held off a
          >vastly more powerful nation with a population 10 times that of Canada.
          >Simply put, America declared war on Britian with the intent of capturing
          >Canada and we stopped them. The reasons for their invasion are irrelevent,
          >land captured by the British means little and the number of battles won by
          >either side is moot. After the dust settled and before any peace treaty was
          >signed Canada was still there. Conclusion we won the war... hands down.
          >
          >While on the topic of who won what though... there is a question that has
          >been nagging me. The line people draw about who won the Battle of Lundy's
          >Lane. America says it is a clear cut victory on their part and yet can they
          >really claim it as such. Casualties on both sides were similar. Yes, the
          >Americans did capture the British guns, but then found their position
          >tenuous at best and opted to abandon them where they were. They then made a
          >tactical retreat back to Fort Erie effectively ending their assault
          >campaign up the pennisula. The British on the other hand were left in
          >control of the field even if they could put up no effective pursuit of the
          >Americans until the next day. They were successful in their bid to stop the
          >American advance and hold strategic ground. The British failed to achieve
          >these goals at Chippewa and so the victory goes to America in the battle --
          >clearly. But at Lundy's Lane America achieved none of it's goal while
          >Britian did exactly what they needed to do. With a little coaxing I'm
          >prepared to give them a draw but I'm also quite willing to say we won that
          >one. (So let the dirt fly now)
          >
          >This next section is directed at Rob Henderson.
          >
          >Your posting about valian Canadian action is excellent but there are a few
          >points you missed that I feel must be corrected.
          >
          >Ogdensburg - You mention the Glengarry Light at Ogdensburg but neglect to
          >mention the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (all colonial fencibles). The
          >entire assault was led by Capt. Tito LeLievre M.I.D. While the Glengarries
          >were pinned down by artillery Capt. LeLievre led the Newfoudlanders in a
          >bayonet assault against a dug in position and drove the American line back.
          >Shortly after the town was surrendered. LeLievre was Mentioned in Dispatch
          >for his valiant action.
          >
          >Fort George - Again you mention the Glengarries in their bayonet charge
          >against the Americans but fail to mention the Royal Newfoundland Grenadier
          >company's part in the battle. They fought a rear gaurd action and remained
          >in contact with the enemy under withering conditions for over 4 hours. "In
          >contact" in military terms means that they were "insight of and engaged
          >with" the enemy. The Grenadiers suffered over 50 percent casualties for
          >their efforts.
          >
          >Resupply of Fort Michilimackinac - You mention the heroic march of the
          >104th from New Brunswick but what about the Royal Newfoundland Regt's march
          >from York to Georgian Bay where they built bateaux in the woods and then
          >rowed from there to Fort Michilimackinac. A total journey of 700 kms. with
          >the march starting in mid-March.
          >
          >I know I'm dwelling on the Royal Newfoundlanders but they are my regiment
          >and I hate to see them neglected. I'm actually supporting what you say in
          >that it was really Canadians who defended Canadian soil and we who had so
          >much to lose if America was victorious. We fought hard to defend our land
          >and WE WON!!!
          >
          >No ifs, ands, or buts; Canada won the War of 1812!
          >
          >
          >
          >Cpl. Sean Hirst
          >Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
          >*********************************
          >945-0591
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >We have a new web site! http://www.onelist.com
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of
          square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of
          square miles...
        • Paul W. Schulz
          Sean, I usually find that I am in agreement with many of the things that you have written but in this case I am wondering if you cracked your head coming out
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 20, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Sean,
            I usually find that I am in agreement with many of the things that you
            have written but in this case I am wondering if you cracked your head coming
            out of the car today. This will be a first, hearing someone complain that
            those on different sides in debate are conducting themselves as gentlemen is
            a new one for me. If you would rather change the tone of the conversations
            I'm sure that can be accommodated. As far as defending national pride you'll
            find that I can be about as salty as they come. In fact you may find I can
            be the nastiest person you ever met on the issue, full of more vinegar than
            rancid wine. I guess that's what comes of loosing friends in the defense of
            a flag that was bought in blood rather than issued by a government divesting
            itself of territory it no longer wanted.
            As far as the Canadians winning the war I'll go along with them as 20th
            century winners, but not 19th century winners. The inhabitants of Canada
            were British, not Canadian. No Canadian identity existed before the war. You
            had a hodge podge of French, American immigrants and ARW refugees, in many
            cases all with differing agendas. That would be why Brock initially did not
            trust the militia and you had those problems with Mr. Wilcox. After the war
            they were all firmly British, having fought for a common cause and from that
            developed the sense of Canadian Nationalism seen today. Which still varies
            from providence to providence.
            As far as who won a Lundy's Lane....well let me help you with that one
            to, lest you grope around in the dark forever. The US won guys, sorry. The
            winner of a battle (at least in the tactical sense) is the side left in
            possession of the field. They don't have to homestead, just keep it and not
            be chased away. The Battle started for the US as a recognizance in force
            with the major British action PLANNED for the other side of the river. This
            action was recalled due to the rapidly changing situation on Canadian soil,
            The British DID NOT hold the strategic ground at the end of the battle and I
            defy you to pull up documented proof that they did. The US retired due to
            unavailable water making the ground ultimately unsuitable for a relocation
            of the camp. The US also retired when they damned well pleased, and in very
            good order and at a slow UNMOLESTED pace. Captains Glews much recorded
            charge did not take place at the end of the battle but in the middle of it.
            The British retired OFF the field and up Lundy's Lane leaving two companies
            to monitor US activities. Even these soldiers did not keep close enough
            contact to detect the US redeployment until after sun up. The forces that
            Mr. Cruikshank mentions in his much discredited accounts as an American rear
            guard was nothing more than a work party assigned to remove the pieces on
            the day following the battle and the British did not occupy any ground until
            the day after. To call this a British victory is kinda like sayin' on your
            why to the mail box you found $100.00 (US currency of course) and coming
            back in to the house and sayin' "Hey, look I earned $100.00 bucks today." It
            doesn't was and it sure aint consistent with the facts. If you have any
            further questions I reffer you to "Where right and Glory Lead," by Donald
            Graves Appendix C beginning on pg 265. Enjoy it its a good book.
            Don't get me wrong I am in no way detracting from the conduct or bravery
            of the Crown Forces in any action in any theater of the period, but let's
            call a spade a spade, get your facts straight.
            Speaking of spades how's that for a shovel full of dirt. Now don't you
            think its better when we pull a punch or two and act like gentlemen. Jim
            makes one of the finest points I've yet read on this electronic BB. Try to
            look at things from a 19th Century point of view not at what resulted in our
            20th century world. As a side note Jim I am indebted to you for another
            insightful look in to the hobby and the 19th century mind. With my
            dissertation about Rob's question a couple of days ago I was attempting to
            list the US point of view and aims from a 19th century perspective not sugar
            coat anything in a 20th century era of P/C. Unlike some of the crap I read
            on this rag from north of the border I am not trying to refight the War of
            1812, just reenact it and keep the memory of brave men alive.
            Paul Schulz
            4th US Rt. of Inf
            Snelling's Co.
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Sean <shirst@...>
            To: WarOf1812@onelist.com <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
            Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 10:31 AM
            Subject: [WarOf1812] Who won???


            >From: Sean <shirst@...>
            >
            >Everyone seems to think it necessary to sugar coat their answer so that no
            >one gets offended and while I don't want to make enemies I have no problem
            >with stating exactly what I think without disclaimers. There was one clear
            >and obvious winner in the War of 1812... the Canadians! We one because we
            >fly a Canadian flag, have a Canadian national anthem, Canadian (play)
            >money, our very own wonderful parliament with all of its problems, taxes, a
            >national debt, etc, etc. It may have been considered a minor occurrance on
            >the world stage but to us it could be argued to be the most important
            >defining point in our nation's history. A small number of men held off a
            >vastly more powerful nation with a population 10 times that of Canada.
            >Simply put, America declared war on Britian with the intent of capturing
            >Canada and we stopped them. The reasons for their invasion are irrelevent,
            >land captured by the British means little and the number of battles won by
            >either side is moot. After the dust settled and before any peace treaty was
            >signed Canada was still there. Conclusion we won the war... hands down.
            >
            >While on the topic of who won what though... there is a question that has
            >been nagging me. The line people draw about who won the Battle of Lundy's
            >Lane. America says it is a clear cut victory on their part and yet can they
            >really claim it as such. Casualties on both sides were similar. Yes, the
            >Americans did capture the British guns, but then found their position
            >tenuous at best and opted to abandon them where they were. They then made a
            >tactical retreat back to Fort Erie effectively ending their assault
            >campaign up the pennisula. The British on the other hand were left in
            >control of the field even if they could put up no effective pursuit of the
            >Americans until the next day. They were successful in their bid to stop the
            >American advance and hold strategic ground. The British failed to achieve
            >these goals at Chippewa and so the victory goes to America in the battle --
            >clearly. But at Lundy's Lane America achieved none of it's goal while
            >Britian did exactly what they needed to do. With a little coaxing I'm
            >prepared to give them a draw but I'm also quite willing to say we won that
            >one. (So let the dirt fly now)
            >
            >This next section is directed at Rob Henderson.
            >
            >Your posting about valian Canadian action is excellent but there are a few
            >points you missed that I feel must be corrected.
            >
            >Ogdensburg - You mention the Glengarry Light at Ogdensburg but neglect to
            >mention the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (all colonial fencibles). The
            >entire assault was led by Capt. Tito LeLievre M.I.D. While the Glengarries
            >were pinned down by artillery Capt. LeLievre led the Newfoudlanders in a
            >bayonet assault against a dug in position and drove the American line back.
            >Shortly after the town was surrendered. LeLievre was Mentioned in Dispatch
            >for his valiant action.
            >
            >Fort George - Again you mention the Glengarries in their bayonet charge
            >against the Americans but fail to mention the Royal Newfoundland Grenadier
            >company's part in the battle. They fought a rear gaurd action and remained
            >in contact with the enemy under withering conditions for over 4 hours. "In
            >contact" in military terms means that they were "insight of and engaged
            >with" the enemy. The Grenadiers suffered over 50 percent casualties for
            >their efforts.
            >
            >Resupply of Fort Michilimackinac - You mention the heroic march of the
            >104th from New Brunswick but what about the Royal Newfoundland Regt's march
            >from York to Georgian Bay where they built bateaux in the woods and then
            >rowed from there to Fort Michilimackinac. A total journey of 700 kms. with
            >the march starting in mid-March.
            >
            >I know I'm dwelling on the Royal Newfoundlanders but they are my regiment
            >and I hate to see them neglected. I'm actually supporting what you say in
            >that it was really Canadians who defended Canadian soil and we who had so
            >much to lose if America was victorious. We fought hard to defend our land
            >and WE WON!!!
            >
            >No ifs, ands, or buts; Canada won the War of 1812!
            >
            >
            >
            >Cpl. Sean Hirst
            >Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
            >*********************************
            >945-0591
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >We have a new web site! http://www.onelist.com
            >------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of
            square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of
            square miles...
          • Sean
            Paul, Sorry to have offended so deeply on this topic. That was not my intention when I suggested people stop candy coating their answers. I just tire of people
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 22, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Paul,

              Sorry to have offended so deeply on this topic. That was not my intention
              when I suggested people stop candy coating their answers. I just tire of
              people never really taking sides on an issue and pussy footing around it
              just to keep everyone else happy. Besides it makes a debate so very much
              more interesting when there are clear cut sides being taken. Just look at
              all the mail zipping around cyberspace now. Unfortunately, I do all my mail
              from work and only get to see what has happened over the weekend after I
              get back on Monday so some of my responses may seem a bit dated but I find
              I must respond to your mail.

              With regards to Lundy's Lane, Touche! I'll go no further on that topic as
              it has been some time since I have read about it and have no source at hand
              from which to quote and support my arguments. I did, however, read Donald
              Graves first book on the subject - The Battle of Lundy's Lane - (I think
              this is what it's called, but I read it several years ago.)

              But to say that we have lost no friends or shed no blood over our flag and
              that it was just handed to us by a mother country that could no longer be
              bothered with us is, well, offensive. I will chalk it up to you miswording
              your phrases due to being fired in the blood at some of my poorly worded
              statements and to a misunderstanding of Canadian/British relations.

              Jim's posting - Family Fights, Sunday - was most excellent. A national
              pride instilling speech of the grandest proportion which I agree with most
              completely. The Canadian government was granted basic home rule in 1867
              with its own council and parliament under its own Prime Minister. We
              maintained the British flag though as it best served our purpose at the
              time. in 1967 Lester Pearson and the Canadian government decided in
              celebration of Canada's 100 years as a nation we would search for a new
              flag and the Maple Leaf was born. We were not handed a flag by a
              disinterested British government and sent on our way to play on our own. We
              earned it, in war and peace on the world stage and as a nation proud of its
              British heritage (sorry to those of French liniage). Please, do not suggest
              that our flag is little more than a bauble; a gift handed to us peace
              loving, smiling, orphans of British disinterest. People have gone to war
              over less.

              As to whether or not people of the time considered themselves Canadian...
              Not all people in Canada were displaced Americans, loyalists or french.
              There were Scots here from the early 1700's on, the French had continually
              occupied the area from the mid 1500's and the British had been settling the
              area seriously from the mid 1700's. People born and bred here considered
              themselves Canadian. They might refer to themselves as per their specific
              language group but they were still Canadian. A french military manual from
              around 1750 refers to the french marines as being officer by mostly
              Canadians. People from an area did not refer to themselves as whatever the
              occupying government of the day was but tended to name themselves after the
              region in which they lived. England rules over almost all of the British
              Isles but you would never hear a Scotsman, a Welshman, or an Northern
              Irishman call himself British. England ruled over India but the Indian's
              didn't refer to themselves as British. So goes it with the people born and
              bred in Canada. Sure not all of them had the same agenda during the war.
              Most saw it as an inconvenient disruption in trade with a neighbour who was
              very much like themselves, spoke the same language and had the same
              problems to deal with that a frontier life has to offer. But one thing is
              for sure, they were Canadian and after the war was over fiercely proud of
              it.

              I would also be careful about jokes regarding any future monarch and I know
              that is what they are intended as but, there are a great many Royalists out
              there that might take offence at such statements. Charles may have been
              less than discrete about his affairs and was not a perfect husband but he
              is certainly qualified in every other way. He's an accomplished artist
              who's paintings are on display in several art galleries, he was highly
              educated in the best British Universities, has served in a command capacity
              in both the Navy and Airforce branch of the British military and completed
              the very rigorous parachute course required by the Brit para regiments.
              Along with his various charities and other sundries I would say he is a
              very capable head of state... Guess you could say I'm a Royalist.

              Hail King Geo...Charles???

              Hope I haven't alienated one of my self-styled "supporters!"



              Cpl. Sean Hirst
              Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
              *********************************
              945-0591
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.