RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it. What is (was) the actual question? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Edwardian Posted January 16, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) What is (was) the actual question? To be or not to be? EDIT: The central question was whether the duchy of Schleswig was or was not an integral part of the dominions of the Danish crown, with which it had been associated in the Danish monarchy for centuries or whether Schleswig should, together with Holstein, become an independent part of the German Confederation. Schleswig itself was a fiefdom of Denmark, as the duchy of Holstein had been a fief of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, and become a component state of the German Confederation with the Danish king as duke. This involved the question, raised by the death of the last common male heir to both Denmark and the two duchies, as to the proper succession in the duchies, and the constitutional questions arising out of the relations of the duchies to the Danish crown, to each other, and of Holstein to the German Confederation. (Wiki) Alles klar? Edited January 16, 2019 by Edwardian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 16, 2019 So, no alps in the Wirral after all ...You can still go looking for them, though. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 I bet she chickened out of jumping after the reference photo was taken.... We must have had harder constitutions back then, the baths weren't heated, just chlorinated seawater. Above the bathers head is Fort Perch Rock and the Perch Rock lighthouse. The fort was built in the 1820s to defend the Port of Liverpool but didn't see much in the way of action! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Perch_Rock Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 Alles klar?Does the WNR now have a line to Royston Vasey? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinT Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 I must add that just beyond the houses in the foreground you can make out the railway from Ellesmere Port to Warrington, along which the GWR had running powers, and bisecting from l/r in the middle distance the M56. Well no it didn't - tho' it's a very common misunderstanding of the railways of North Cheshire. The line to Walton Junc (on the WCML just south of Warrington) was part of the GWR & LNWR Joint system that owned many of the lines of the Wirral. Thus the GW didn't need running powers - it was a joint owner. Of course it did have running powers from Walton Junc onwards to Warrington & Manchester Exchange. The original line to Walton Junc (from Chester) was opened in 1850 by the Birkenhead, Lancashire, & Cheshire Junction Rly which was granted running powers into Manchester. This company was renamed the Birkenhead Railway in 1859, & the following year was taken over by the GWR & LNWR jointly. Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) You can even travel the area by new electric train, alighting at a station that was the biggest rip-off of LT architecture ever. Edited January 16, 2019 by Nearholmer 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) You can even travel the area by new electric train, alighting at a station that was the biggest rip-off of LT architecture ever. Post 1936, well post-grouping! The station is still there minus the LMS sign and the name on the roof (probably taken away in WW2). Just to the right of the level crossing would be a Wirral Railway signal box. As for the passengers, " 'ere Joe, there's some toffs, 'eave 'alf a brick at 'em!" However, I can't decide if the 503 is going towards Liverpool or West Kirby... (and the white cloud is hovering nicely over the gasworks!) Edited January 16, 2019 by Hroth 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 Well no it didn't - tho' it's a very common misunderstanding of the railways of North Cheshire. The line to Walton Junc (on the WCML just south of Warrington) was part of the GWR & LNWR Joint system that owned many of the lines of the Wirral. Thus the GW didn't need running powers - it was a joint owner. Of course it did have running powers from Walton Junc onwards to Warrington & Manchester Exchange. The original line to Walton Junc (from Chester) was opened in 1850 by the Birkenhead, Lancashire, & Cheshire Junction Rly which was granted running powers into Manchester. This company was renamed the Birkenhead Railway in 1859, & the following year was taken over by the GWR & LNWR jointly. Martin I was perhaps over-simplifying, though the GWR ran goods services over the line, there weren't any GWR passenger services, unlike the main line to Woodside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Edwardian Posted January 16, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 I was perhaps over-simplifying, NEVER attempt that here ....!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold phil_sutters Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 You can still go looking for them, though.8F64950D-9273-43A7-A959-30C3F2CBB5F8.jpeg and a real photo from 1908ish - judging by the ages of my great- uncle and aunts. 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin S-C Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 To be or not to be? EDIT: The central question was whether the duchy of Schleswig was or was not an integral part of the dominions of the Danish crown, with which it had been associated in the Danish monarchy for centuries or whether Schleswig should, together with Holstein, become an independent part of the German Confederation. Schleswig itself was a fiefdom of Denmark, as the duchy of Holstein had been a fief of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, and become a component state of the German Confederation with the Danish king as duke. This involved the question, raised by the death of the last common male heir to both Denmark and the two duchies, as to the proper succession in the duchies, and the constitutional questions arising out of the relations of the duchies to the Danish crown, to each other, and of Holstein to the German Confederation. (Wiki) Alles klar? So pretty much what was going everywhere else in German speaking Europe regarding principalities, duchies, grand-duchies, bishoprics and whatever else, and which Bismarck and others used as leverage to expand Prussia's later borders. The story of the HRE, its politics, religion, noble families, dysfunctional assemblies and gradual decline from about 1650 to 1918 is a really fascinating subject. If you're that way inclined, of course. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drmditch Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 RE: Schleswig Holstein. Just to point out that in the resultant conflict there was a naval battle near Helgoland, then I think a British island (I do not know why we insist on inserting an 'i'). The allied ie Austro - German fleet was commanded by the Austrian admiral Tegethoff. I did do some research yesterday on Doggerland. It only seems to have existed when the proto-Rhine joined with the proto-Thames and ran down what is now the English Channel. The Ouse ran out between Doggerland and what is now Lincolnshire. I believe but could not find evidence for yesterday that after some changes the Rhine and the Thames joined the Ouse and ran north. I also believe that the deep water channel down the present day North Sea runs down the British coast formed by that river channel. Anyone who has sailed from Helgoland to the Tyne with the depth sounder and/or gps chart tracking on will have the evidence of that. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin S-C Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 I was perhaps over-simplifying Fatal. Do that and you end up with bolt-heads on your Dean Goods splashers. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 Fatal. Do that and you end up with bolt-heads on your Dean Goods splashers. And lets not even mention the firebox shape, or the ATC conduit.... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 RE: Schleswig Holstein. Just to point out that in the resultant conflict there was a naval battle near Helgoland, then I think a British island (I do not know why we insist on inserting an 'i'). The allied ie Austro - German fleet was commanded by the Austrian admiral Tegethoff. I did do some research yesterday on Doggerland. It only seems to have existed when the proto-Rhine joined with the proto-Thames and ran down what is now the English Channel. The Ouse ran out between Doggerland and what is now Lincolnshire. I believe but could not find evidence for yesterday that after some changes the Rhine and the Thames joined the Ouse and ran north. I also believe that the deep water channel down the present day North Sea runs down the British coast formed by that river channel. Anyone who has sailed from Helgoland to the Tyne with the depth sounder and/or gps chart tracking on will have the evidence of that. Because Heligoland is far more euphonious! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 What we see in the photo are: The two grey concrete ventilation towers of the Wallasey(Kingsway) vehicular tunnel. The far tower is in Seacombe, close to the site of the former Seacombe station. The road tunnel emerges and passes along the line of the former railway towards Bidston. Thr tip of the far cooling tower aligns with Bidston Hill, the white buildings on the crest to the right are Bidston Windmill and part of the former Bidston Observatory. The urban area to the right is Wallasey, shading into New Brighton. Beyond the crest of Bidston Hill, the peaks are the hills and mountains of North Wales, on the far side of the Dee estuary. The lower bumps are the Flintshire hills, and the further bumps are the higer hills between those and the Snowdonia range, the tips of which can be seen if you follow vertically from the closer ventilation tower. I would surmise that the photo was taken from Everton Brow. Something like this https://www.peakfinder.org/?lat=53.4165&lng=-2.973&azi=255&zoom=4&ele=37&date=2019-01-15T21:50Z&name=Everton%20brow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium corneliuslundie Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 16, 2019 Was that river rerouting at about the same time as the Severn decided to go south instead of to the Wirral? Howzat for linking two off piste subtopics in one post? And re the Welsh Alps, I have already posted the LMS poster about ten thousand pages back. Whether the Wirral should be part of Wales is another question - along with Oswestry. Mind you, Craven Arms is far more Welsh than much of the Severn valley. But back to the East Coast even if not to CA: Not pre-grouping but i have always liked this set of postcards, issued as one concertina fold a few years ago. A Schleswig-Holstein outcast 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 By 'The drier side of Britain', I assume they are referring to the weather and not the availability of 'refreshments'.? Jim 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
webbcompound Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 RE: Schleswig Holstein. Just to point out that in the resultant conflict there was a naval battle near Helgoland, then I think a British island (I do not know why we insist on inserting an 'i'). The allied ie Austro - German fleet was commanded by the Austrian admiral Tegethoff. Admiral Tegetthof! His career sat squarely in the period when ironclad ships could get to close quarters and ram each other. Tegetthof's ship, the screw frigate Schwarzenberg caught fire after a close range gunnery duel with the Danish frigates Nils Juel and Nyland at the battle of Helgoland. Here he is on the bridge of his flagship Erzherzog Ferdinand Max about to ram and sink the Italian armoured frigate Re d'Italia at the battle of Lissa 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedGemAlchemist Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 By 'The drier side of Britain', I assume they are referring to the weather... Jim Dry weather? In Britain? Thought that was only myth? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) By 'The drier side of Britain', I assume they are referring to the weather and not the availability of 'refreshments'.? Jim Wetter, colder, foggier..... I recall thrashing down the Trent towards Torksey in the teeth of a savage easterly, during a Whit bank holiday. Icy rain, sleet. So bracing! Edited January 16, 2019 by Hroth 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Edwardian Posted January 16, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 By 'The drier side of Britain', I assume they are referring to the weather and not the availability of 'refreshments'.? Jim Ironically, all the places in Britain where you can't get a drink on a Sunday seem to be on the wetter side! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 It came with a couple of Triang hacks in GNoSR colours All Third Class I'd say! Gosh, I go away for a few days and so much to catch up on! Going back two pages already in 6-and-a-half hours, that's a very nice little train. An interesting little coupe compartment on the right of the third-class coach, too! Very neatly done. The Drill Hall is looking excellent as ever, as are the cottages. Truly exceptional modelling! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drmditch Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) Admiral Tegetthof! His career sat squarely in the period when ironclad ships could get to close quarters and ram each other. Tegetthof's ship, the screw frigate Schwarzenberg caught fire after a close range gunnery duel with the Danish frigates Nils Juel and Nyland at the battle of Helgoland. Here he is on the bridge of his flagship Erzherzog Ferdinand Max about to ram and sink the Italian armoured frigate Re d'Italia at the battle of Lissa P1160105.JPG Yes, it was unfortunate that the Ferdinand Max was an armoured wooden ship, and although the Re d'Italia did sink, the Ferdinand Max didn't come off a lot better. The battle was counted as a major Austrian victory. There is a splendid memorial to Tegetthoff in Vienna. What the battle did do was to set a phase of designing ships to ram each other which lasted quite a long time. Eventually, it was realised that the ramming vessel was quite likely to take impact damage. Reciprocating engines didn't like suddenly being brought up all standing.. So the ramming vessels morphed into 'torpedo rams', which could break booms but also fire the new Whitehead torpedoes and possibly avoid the need to ram ships at all. The only such vessel in the RN was HMS Polyphemus, on which the fictional Thunderchild was based, which was effective against the Martian tripods in H G Wells 'The War of the Worlds'.. After the ram was abandoned as a design feature it was non-the-less remarkable that ramming was so often used as a deliberate tactic. The only ship to be sunk by HMS Dreadnought was a German submarine rammed in 1915. In WW2 it must have been sheer frustration which lead so many destroyer and escort commanders to ram surfaced U-boats. We are now well off thread, so a brief 'might have been' may be in order. If Helgoland had not been 'swapped' for Zanzibar in 1890, think what a splendid railway link there could have been. All the way under the North Sea! Edited January 16, 2019 by drmditch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now