Any history buffs know about a famine in England,1879? All I can find is about Ireland,did Eng also have one?
104140
Just Ireland was affected by the potato famine, not England.\n\nBasically, Ireland was so dependent on Potatoes that when the harvest failed it led to famine.  \n\nThe British govt were unwilling to help out as Ireland was just a colony to them.
375796
Other the usual (England, Iraq war, etc.), the only major issue I can think of is the fact that Scottish pareliment's roof almost caved in.\n\nBelow are some newspaper sites. The local internet news is always a good place to check for a countries' current concerns and issues.
611181
A lot of UK immigrants came to Canada around the late 1800's early 1900's becouse of industrilization. Peasants were driven from their homes so sheep could roam the countryside for textiles, famine was wide spread and Canada and America were the New World. People were promised land and a new start  some worked on vessels for their passage. Many died on the way over. When they came to the New World they found a very new and wild country and they had to do whatever jobs were available a lot became boat builders or lumberers or worked for the railways then they begin to homestead westward. Excellent referance can be found at Halifaxs Pier 21 or the National Archives in Ottawa. If you know where your Great grandfathered entered the country you can go to the archives there or web search and they will have some records. Good Luck
1101169
I'm English and have many Irish friends/colleagues. I apologise for my fellow English persons bad manners, they were probably jealous that you come from such a beautiful country. Don't let it colour your feelings, you're more than welcome to visit any time you like.
782811
Provided help. Maybe.\n\nBut that's after conquering, oppessing and enslaving the populations for centuries. Just because Wales, Scotland and Ireland eventually lost to the conquerors....\n\nAnyway, some people have long memories, and look at all that has happened, not just what happened recently. \n\nIt's the same with any group that has rivalries and conflict going back centuries. Some won't let go of the past, and some will.
510775
Whatever town you live in, get in contact with your town's historian, they should be able to help you. Good luck!
413200
you didn't say where in england.  this is our local newspaper.\n\nhttp://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/
852328
You must be kidding , who kept census records from that long, they did not find America by then.\n\nMan I searched like a freak and found something at last:\nWarrington was a small town in the Middle Ages. It only had a population of several hundred.\nhttp://www.localhistories.org/warrington.html\n\nPhew !!\n:)
409978
Try: http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/history/
976202
they all hate the english.but look on a early map and there were many different groups in england alone the norse raided all of these people and raped and pillaged and the scots and irish help each other so interbread now so much more alike than different now 15th century much more differences 9th century all different 4bc romans came to england so.1066 normans came.
417412
Birmingham and Manchester are good starts. Both contributed greatly to the Industrial Revolution in GB. The Canal system was a major contributing factor.
274873
Another homework question.....how about looking in your book?  You don't provide a time frame or what PART of EUROPE to which you are referring.  You can get assistance if you direct your question more narrowly.
749272
From Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott, an English evicting land agent in Ireland who was subject to a boycott organized by the Irish Land League in 1880\n\ncheck out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Boycott
736951
I don't think this is a very good thesis. The UK was the first country to go from non-industrial to industrial, but the conditions then were very different from what they are now. An LEDC faces completely different conditions than the problems that Britain had to face back then.\n\nBut some things that were the same would be: poor transportation (in the early 1800s, not in 1900), uneducated workforce (although Britain had a fairly high literacy rate by 1900), poor power infrastructure, poor health care system, lack of reliable and stable democratic government (in early 1800s, not 1900)\n\nA widely recognized expert on this topic is E. J Hobshawm who wrote a book "Industry and Empire" specifically about this. If you need to do a term paper, that would be a good source.
261008
http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/loyalroyals/reading_history.shtml\nTry this addy.
826416
Got this e-mail today.  This is a good read - funny how it took someone in England to put it into words...\n\nSunday Telegraph Article\nFrom today's UK wires: Salute to a brave and modest nation\nKevin Myers, The Sunday Telegraph\n\n    LONDON - Until the deaths last week of four Canadian soldiers accidentally killed by a U.S. warplane in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops were deployed in the region.  And as always, Canada will now bury its dead, just as the rest of the world as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.\n\n    It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored. Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries.  But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.\n \n    That is the price Canada pays for sharing the North American continent with the United States, and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions: It seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an  address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never fully got the gratitude it deserved.\n \n    Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy. Almost 10% of Canada's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.\n \n    Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular Memory as somehow or other the work of the "British." \n\n     The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third-largest navy and  the fourth-largest air force in the world.\n\n    The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign in which the United States had clearly not participated - a touching scrupulousness which, of ourse, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.\n\n    So it is a general rule that actors and filmmakers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality - unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg, Alex Trebek, Art Linkletter and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher Plummer, British. It is as if, in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.\n\n    Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves - and are unheard by anyone else - that 1
813514
Here:\n\nhttp://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/ireland.jpg