British BBQ Society Forums

Pecker wrote:

joker smoker wrote:Regarding British cuisine. Surely, like the British people,it is a blend of the best of everything from around the world or like the British people, its all about where you stand in the class system. Yes, the affluent English may have had a history of great gastronomy but were they not the privileged few? From what I've seen and heard. mostly from Baldrick on Black Adder, the ordinary folk had a pretty dismal diet of gruel and turnips. The roast beef was only for the gentry.

There's some truth in that, but things came and went throughout history.

For example, we've mentioned smoked foods, and smoking (both in early US barbecue culture and the rest og the world, including us) was a way of eating meat and/or fish on a budget.

The gentry didn't eat kippers until they'd discovered from the rest of us that, as well as keeping for a long time, they tasted good.

Families with a pig would cure and smoke once they'd killed an animal, but they wouldn't do that to the whole hog, they'd roast some 'normally' for the first few days, while they had chance.

And game birds were a staple part of the British diet, as were other wild animals like rabbits.

As for British food being a blend of styles from around the world, I quite agree. Indeed, I've discussed that earlier in the thread.

Steve W

keith157 wrote:Game birds were not a part of the normal country diet, they belonged to the landowner as did the rabbits, other birds fish and insects. They could with permission trap rabbits but again only in certain areas and times. This of course depended on how the landlord earned his money. To take game birds from the land was theft, pure and simple and, depending on the age you are talking about the opunishment for theft of wildlife or poaching could range from death to imprisonment to nowadays have a stern finger wagged at you, assuming it ever got to court.

Pecker wrote:

keith157 wrote:Game birds were not a part of the normal country diet, they belonged to the landowner as did the rabbits, other birds fish and insects. They could with permission trap rabbits but again only in certain areas and times. This of course depended on how the landlord earned his money. To take game birds from the land was theft, pure and simple and, depending on the age you are talking about the opunishment for theft of wildlife or poaching could range from death to imprisonment to nowadays have a stern finger wagged at you, assuming it ever got to court.

Aye up, Keith. I don't want to get too wrapped up in this one small area, but it's too easy to think of 'the olden days' where the lord of the manor controlled everything, etc.

This island has a history of tens of thousands of years. Even under feudal systems the 'lord' or whoever didn't always have or exact the same amount of control over the people on his land. The idea that all the grouse on the estate belonged to the lord, and that his serfs weren't allowed to eat them, whilst correct in some instances, will have applied to only a limited proportion of the land & people, and for a limited amount of our history.

Steve W

The Social Smokers wrote:

Pecker wrote:

keith157 wrote:Game birds were not a part of the normal country diet, they belonged to the landowner as did the rabbits, other birds fish and insects. They could with permission trap rabbits but again only in certain areas and times. This of course depended on how the landlord earned his money. To take game birds from the land was theft, pure and simple and, depending on the age you are talking about the opunishment for theft of wildlife or poaching could range from death to imprisonment to nowadays have a stern finger wagged at you, assuming it ever got to court.

Aye up, Keith. I don't want to get too wrapped up in this one small area, but it's too easy to think of 'the olden days' where the lord of the manor controlled everything, etc.

This island has a history of tens of thousands of years. Even under feudal systems the 'lord' or whoever didn't always have or exact the same amount of control over the people on his land. The idea that all the grouse on the estate belonged to the lord, and that his serfs weren't allowed to eat them, whilst correct in some instances, will have applied to only a limited proportion of the land & people, and for a limited amount of our history.

Steve W

This thread has now gone completely off topic...

Pecker wrote:Did we come to any conclusion, or are we in disagreement?

Chris__M wrote:

Pecker wrote:Did we come to any conclusion, or are we in disagreement?

"Is this a 5 minute or a 10 minute argument?"

aris wrote:

Chris__M wrote:

Pecker wrote:Did we come to any conclusion, or are we in disagreement?

"Is this a 5 minute or a 10 minute argument?"

Apparently we're all arguing in our spare time