Art What is England? A Part of the UK & Its Sovereigns

[SW VandeCarr]

It may seem like a strange question to ask, but England isn't really a country, it's a part of a country; the UK. So it's not a kingdom onto itself. Scotland is also a part of the UK, but it now has it's own parliament although it is subordinate to the Westminster Parliament. Wales has an assembly of its own and a prince of its own. Northern Ireland also has its own subordinate parliament.

England has no parliament of its own and no Queen of its own (although it has its own flag: the cross of St George that I see at soccer matches). The Queen serves as sovereign for all the UK as well as Canada and other far flung Commonwealth nations: not to mention those little bits off England's shore like Jersey, Guernsey, Sark and the Isle of Man (all of which have their own little 'parliaments' which I understand are not subordinate to Westminster).

So what is England exactly?

 

[JaredJames]

England is a country. As is Wales and Scotland. Together they form Great Britain.

The UK is all of the above plus Northern Island. The UK is not a country, it is as it says, the United Kingdom.

 

[loseyourname]

A bounded region of land.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

England is a country. As is Wales and Scotland. Together they form Great Britain.

The UK is all of the above plus Northern Island. The UK is not a country, it is as it says, the United Kingdom.

Hmm. I'm thinking of a country as a nation state with a seat at the UN, diplomatic relations and all that. BTW, I was wrong about Northern Ireland having a parliament. It was abolished in 1972.

If the UK is not a country, what it is it? There's the United States. Is it not a country? The word "kingdom" is singular in United Kingdom. Therefore it's one thing. I suggest it is a nation state. "Country" is a vague term. I suppose you could call Flanders a "country" but it really is just a part of Belgium.

 

[JaredJames]

Hmm. I'm thinking of a country as a nation state with a seat at the UN, diplomatic relations and all that. BTW, I was wrong about Northern Ireland having a parliament. It was abolished in 1972.

If the UK is not a country, what it is it? There's the United States. Is it not a country? The word "kingdom" is singular in United Kingdom. Therefore it's one thing. I suggest it is a nation state. "Country" is a vague term. I suppose you could call Flanders a "country" but it really is just a part of Belgium.

It's united in the sense you have four countries all as one. And a kingdom because we have a king (or queen) as a figure head of it.
The uk is a nation.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It's united in the sense you have four countries all as one. And a kingdom because we have a king (or queen) as a figure head of it.
The uk is a nation.

I agree with that. But what is England? Ontario is a province of Canada. It has it's own government institutions within a federal structure. The same for the states of Australia and the US, the lander of Germany and the cantons of Switzerland.

England is divided into counties which have their own local governing councils and public responsibilities. But what about England as a whole? What political institutions exist for England and only for England?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'd really like to know.

 

[JaredJames]

It's a country.

The government for england is parliament in westminster. Scotland may have it's own parliament but they are still under the rule of westminster ultimately, wales also has an assembly but that has even less power. The UK is all under the parliament in westminster. Scotland and wales are not seperate. To be truly separate would make them he same as southern ireland. Which is under its own government.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It's a country.

The government for england is parliament in westminster. Scotland may have it's own parliament but they are still under the rule of westminster ultimately, wales also has an assembly but that has even less power. The UK is all under the parliament in westminster. Scotland and wales are not seperate. To be truly separate would make them he same as southern ireland. Which is under its own government.

I understand all that. You seem to be saying that England is country like Castile is a country within Spain. Both have some distinct identity within a nation state but no uniquely identifying political institutions. Scotland and Wales have there own "local" institutions and Scotland seems to have its own courts as well. But you haven't named any political institutions that exist uniquely for England and only England. Are there any? Westminster legislates for the entire UK. Even if some laws are framed only for England, Westminster is not uniquely an English institution.

EDIT: For example, do the English MPs ever sit as a separate body to legislate for England without Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish MPs?

 

[JaredJames]

England is a country in the same way spain is a country, in the same way france is a country, in the same way germany is a country. Which is why england, scotland and wales all have international football teams that play in the world cup against france, germany, spain.

 

[JaredJames]

You seem to be missing the point, westminster legislates for the whole UK. England doesn't need its own government (neither does scotland and wales but that's a separate debate).

The welsh assembly is pointless and scotland still don't have full control. As far as I'm aware, neither can pass laws.

I live in wales. I really don't see what you want, why is it important england has its own government?

The UK is in the EU. The UK is in the UN. Not the individual countries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is no need. The UK is governed as one and operates as one (for the most part).

 

[SW VandeCarr]

England is a country in the same way spain is a country, in the same way france is a country, in the same way germany is a country. Which is why england, scotland and wales all have international football teams that play in the world cup against france, germany, spain.

That's simply not true. England is a country like Castile or Flanders is a country. (Castile in particular as the historical center of political power in Spain) Yes England does compete under its own flag in sports. That's what makes this an interesting question to me. However it is the UK that is a country like France, Germany and Spain are countries.

You haven't named a single political institution that exists for England and only for England. I'm pretty sure Scotland can legislate for itself for schools and and other areas, If the Scottish Parliament had nothing to do, why would it exist? Same for the Welsh Assembly.

I'm just curious if Welsh and Scottish MPs get to vote for legislation that only affects England in the Westminster Parliament. I think they do, but not the other way round.

 

[cristo]

I can see your confusion, and it's quite understandable why!

I'm just curious if Welsh and Scottish MPs get to vote for legislation that only affects England in the Westminster Parliament. I think they do, but not the other way round.

Yes, this is true; the issue is known as the West Lothian Question. As you know, every constituency in the UK votes for an MP that sits in Westminster. But those constituencies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland also vote people to sit in their own parliament/assembly. These then have full control over certain devolved issues. But no, there is no separate body that legislates only for England.

As for your question "what is England", it is a country, that is part of a larger country and sovereign state (the UK).

 

[Gokul43201]

As for your question "what is England", it is a country, that is part of a larger country and sovereign state (the UK).

To borrow a quote from someone here: What a weird country!

 

[JaredJames]

That's simply not true. England is a country like Castile or Flanders is a country. (Castile in particular as the historical center of political power in Spain) Yes England does compete under its own flag in sports. That's what makes this an interesting question to me. However it is the UK that is a country like France, Germany and Spain are countries.

The UK is what people look at when they consider things such as the EU and UN. Like I said, it is all governed as one and operates as one. There is no need to look at individual country governments. Although when it comes to other matters, they are viewed separately (I say this because, as with my football example, they are given the same standing as France and Germany to compete individually against them. Does Castile have an international team that play against other places such as Spain? No, then it would seem they aren't viewed on the same level).

You haven't named a single political institution that exists for England and only for England.

There isn't one.

I'm pretty sure Scotland can legislate for itself for schools and and other areas,

The only good thing I'm aware of that the Welsh Assembly has done is make all prescription medicine free (as opposed to England where you have to pay for prescriptions).

If the Scottish Parliament had nothing to do, why would it exist? Same for the Welsh Assembly.

For the same reason you end up with ridiculous numbers of management in organisations (particularly the NHS). Someone has a 'good idea' at some point which people see as potentially useful. So far, the Welsh Assemblies job seems to focus on pouring money into various schemes and 'addressing' the somewhat less important issues in Wales (again, this is a a completely separate debate and something I don't think appropriate given your initial question).

I'm just curious if Welsh and Scottish MPs get to vote for legislation that only affects England in the Westminster Parliament. I think they do, but not the other way round.

They do.

England is a country, that, if it chooses can leave the UK (as we could leave the EU) and become independent like Southern Ireland.

I do agree, it is an interesting question, something that I've never really thought about. But then I wouldn't think of it too much, I know what everything is and where each one fits in (UK, GB and the individual countries), I suppose it's one of those 'you have to live there' kind of things.

 

[cristo]

To borrow a quote from someone here: What a weird country!

Touché!

 

[DaveC426913]

Wales is a country?

 

[JaredJames]

To borrow a quote from someone here: What a weird country!

Good job I read this before posting, I thought you put "What a wired country". Was going to start ranting about how the people of the UK are not all drug addicts and it was an accusation without proof. Could have ended badly...

 

[cristo]

Wales is a country?

It sure is.

 

[JaredJames]

Wales is a country?

Yep, I live there. Although I have found in life that is a fact it's best not to divulge too quickly, although the accent gives you up instantly. Let me give you the basic contents of a conversation in England:

English Person: "Hello and where are you from?"
Me: "South Wales"
English Person: "Oh" [Slight pause, with look of 'oh he's as thick as a bulls kn*b']

English Person: [Insert random sheep molesting joke here]

A bit explicit, but that's the exact pattern every conversation I have with new people takes.

Gets a bit boring after a while. Although I do enjoy the look on their face when I get better results than them in the university exams and coursework!

 

[epenguin]

The transatlantic OP has blundered into a nest of more or less friendly hornets.

A lot to say - I won't now.

Even people not as far away as the OP, namely in Europe, are quite confused about it, and this goes for people who ought to know like press reporters.

But then many Europeans are quite confused about Canada. Like it's in America isn't it? - but hold on, there is something or other funny about it. But perhaps there is about Texas too.

Basically Continentals call the whole lot England, Angleterre, Inghilterra, Engeland, etc. It leads to descriptions which to the British sound distinctly odd, like the English Army, English Navy or English Parliament or Government - inexistent entities.

Then to complicate matters as well as the places already mentioned in the thread there are what are called 'Crown Dependencies' (the Channel Islands and Isle of Man) which are not part of the UK nor represented in Parliament, not colonies, self-governing yet not totally independent, recognise the Queen whose head is on their coinage and stamps.

What is really behind all the complication is that Great Britain has a continuity of history without the kind of breaks represented by the American or French Revolutions. Thus the formal feudal system and model of sovereignty was never totally torn up to start with some new founding document or Constitution like most Continental countries under the influence more or less of the French Revolution. In practice it adapts while respecting some archaic forms and, very broad-brushing, the country has little, indeed less than nothing, to envy others in terms of substantial modernity most, not all, of us have tended always to think.

The British Constitution only began not before the Blair governments, i,e, practically this century, to change from something that had hardly changed since 1911 and would have been quite recognisable and familiar to Victorians. Propelling changes were: nationalist or devolutionist forces and voices, interests, sentiments etc.; the desire of Blair and Blairites to look modern; the redimensioning of sovereignty and adaptations implied by membership of the European Union, which in particular works with a different system and concept of law than the English. Of course once you change one part you find you can't stop another, perhaps unforeseen, changing.

The US masses probably only got their first awareness of any of all this when people were surprised that on the Megrahi (Lockerbie, Libyan) scandal they found they were not dealing with the UK Government in London but with a (fruitcake of a) Scottish Justice Minister and 'Government'. Do not be deceived: firstly this had nothing to do with any of these changes, Scotland has always had a different Law and legal system (more influenced by Roman Law) than England; secondly if the UK government said it has no influence that is not because of the independent legal system but rather because different political parties (Labour and Scottish National Party) controlled the different parts and they hate and try to diddle each other.

 

[alxm]

Scotland, Wales, Ireland were basically nation-states that were conquered and/or subjugated by the English. Same as so many others by so many other nations. A difference here is that the English succeeded better than most at obliterating the native cultures/languages, to the extent that the vast majorities in these places now speak English.

By comparison, the Swedes ruled Finland for about as long and never came close to getting a majority speaking their language. Sweden didn't colonize Finland the way England colonized Ireland (in fact, they more often encouraged migration in the opposite direction). While Finland was always considered its own distinct entity, it was not a (recognized) kingdom prior to Swedish rule, hence it was an annexed and integral part of Sweden proper back then. It was a 'country', but not a state in any sense. The idea of Finnish independence did not come about until the 19th century; not always the case for other countries. E.g. Denmark-Norway had been recognized kingdoms and were technically a union, even though Norway was entirely ruled by Denmark.

But they were always 'countries' in the sense that they were always distinct peoples with their own ethnic identity, and own 'home region'. It wasn't really until the 19th century that nationalism lead people to reason that a single people should correspond to a single state. Before that, there was nothing unusual or odd about being ruled by people who spoke a different language than you. Most Europeans lived under such rulers most of the time.

Continuing the Scandinavian example, you can also see what happens when people get assimilated; they drop off the map. Today Sweden's a typical nation-state, the land of the Swedes. But circa 500 A.D., it consisted of the kingdoms of Swedes (Svear) and Geats (Götar). Somewhere between then and the Viking age, the former subjugated the latter, and they were both ruled by the king of the Svear. But the distinction was still in full force, and Scandinavians were generally divided into Swedes, Geats, Norwegians, Danes. (e.g. in Beowulf and the Sagas) The Geats were assimilated during the Middle Ages; they simply faded away into being "Swedes" (distinguished as Svenskar rather than Svear).

 

[Rebound]

The UK precisely fits the definition of a federation:

"A federation (Latin: foedus, foederis, 'covenant'), also known as a federal state, is a type of sovereign state characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government."

For example,

"The form of government or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism (see also federalism as a political philosophy). It can be considered the opposite of another system, the unitary state. The government of Germany with sixteen federated Länder is an example of a federation, whereas neighboring Austria and its Bundesländer was a unitary state with administrative divisions that became federated, and neighboring France by contrast has always been unitary."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Thanks all. I have been educated. Wales is a country. It has had a piece of land it can call its own since the Celts first set foot on the island. It has its own government of sorts. It has own prince; who happens to be English, but actually he comes from a German line. I know all about that fake "Windsor" name. But mostly it has its own language which (practically) no non Welsh person speaks (or would try to speak). England, alas, doesn't really have its own language anymore since far more non-English people speak it than English people, and they use it as if it were their own. Some of the best English literature of the last 100 years has been written by Irish people.

As for Scotland, yes Americans were confused about the Scottish judge and Scottish law. But not me. Scotland is a country too. Funny it would follow Roman Law though. It was never part of the SPQR. England however was, but apparently doesn't follow Roman Law.

Finally, I'm told by everyone that England is a country. But without a government, a set of laws, and a leader it can call its very own, I still have my doubts. It has taken all of these things including its own language, spread them all around and kept nothing for itself except its name...oh, and its flag. I love the English flag.

 

[JaredJames]

But mostly it has its own language which (practically) no non Welsh person speaks (or would try to speak)

I don't know many people who speak Welsh and I live there! The only reason I know basic phrases is because they force you to learn it in schools. To get true welsh speakers you need North or West Wales.

England, alas, doesn't really have its own language anymore since far more non-English people speak it than English people, and they use it as if it were their own.

The language people see as 'English' is what they speak in London (ish, it's mainly from films upi hear it so imagine some posh bad guy). Although it's basics prevail throughout the country, it is distinctly different in various parts. There are a lot of places which have their own phrases, sayings and words which you won't hear anywhere else (coming from the original languages they had in those parts), and as a newcomer to those areas it can be difficult to understand, especially with the variation in accents. Listen to people from Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Yorkshire, Birmingham and London one after another and you will see there is a massive difference between the language spoken and the accents.

Finally, I'm told by everyone that England is a country. But without a government, a set of laws, and a leader it can call its very own, I still have my doubts. It has taken all these things including its own language, spread them all around and kept nothing for itself except its name...oh, and its flag. I love the English flag.

Try not to think of it as England without it's own laws, government and leader. Think of it as Westminster being England's, and the other countries 'piggy-backing' it. (If that helps, I know it isn't strictly true, but if it helps you think about it, what the hell).

 

[Rebound]

With all due respect, I get the impression you didn't read my post. The UK is a federation and it's members are countries. "In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states (read countries) is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government."

[Edit] I felt I should clarify by pointing out that in this context, countries are component states but component states need not be countries. In the case of Canada, the provinces would need to secede from the federation to be considered countries, for example.

 

[JaredJames]

Are you responding to me?

If so, I didn't comment on anything in your post so I don't know what you are referring to in mine (if not, just ignore this).

Regardless, is the Federation status official (as in the view of the government of the UK and other countries) or is it just something you've assigned to it and the UK is actually classified as something else?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

With all due respect, I get the impression you didn't read my post. The UK is a federation and it's members are countries. "In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states (read countries) is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government."

[Edit] I felt I should clarify by pointing out that in this context, countries are component states but component states need not be countries. In the case of Canada, the provinces would need to secede from the federation to be considered countries, for example.

Yes, I suppose the UK is a federation of sorts since devolution. However, the components of a federation have typical names such as "province". Moreover, they are usually equally constituted, all provinces having the same kinds of public responsibilities and government structure. England is not a province. I don't know what it is. They're calling it a country within a country here, but that is not legal term. And England is not the same as the other "countries" in the UK for all the reasons I've pointed out.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yep, I live there.

Oohhhh.. Well that explains a few things...

 

[JaredJames]

Oohhhh.. Well that explains a few things...

Yep says it all!

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The language people see as 'English' is what they speak in London

Really? What part of London?

 

[Studiot]

England has no parliamnent of its own?

Well I think the last invocation of the Witan was pre 1000 as I'm not sure Harold ever called one.
There is, theoretically, nothing to prevent a current monarch calling one though.

Then of course there is the Stannary and Stannary Court - no longer active in Devon but peculiar to Cornwall.

Then there is the Manx Parliament (already mentioned I think).

I can't agree with this view of history though

Scotland, Wales, Ireland were basically nation-states that were conquered and/or subjugated by the English. Same as so many others by so many other nations. A difference here is that the English succeeded better than most at obliterating the native cultures/languages, to the extent that the vast majorities in these places now speak English.

Scotland was not a nation state, it was part of the kingdom of Norway. A (small) part achieved independence from Norway and gained a 'King'. War between this part and England raged for several hundred years, but it was never 'subjugated'.

The end of that phase of Scotland's history came when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England.

Wales was never ever a nation state. Before the Roman occupation it was divided between tribes, as was the rest of Britain and Ireland. After the Romans left it reverted to tribal divisions again until it was finally annexed by the Normans.

My knowledge of Irish history is not so clear, but I think it to be similar to the Welsh, except that the annexation occurred later.

 

[JaredJames]

Really? What part of London?

I was referring more to accents and style of speaking ('rather posh' as films depict it which is where most people get their idea of the British form of the Langauge from), although the words used can vary depending on common slang for that area, that style of the language exists mainly in the London area, extending out to Greater London.

Even London can be separated out, you get the 'posh' areas such as Kingston where I am resident in university where people are fairly well spoken and then you get other places such as the east end where cockney accents and dialect is heard.

I'm trying to think of a good example of the 'classic' English dialect people expect from England, but I'm sure you already know it. When you think 'English person' you don't immediately hear a Birmingham or Liverpudlian accent in your head.

 

[alxm]

Scotland was not a nation state, it was part of the kingdom of Norway. A (small) part achieved independence from Norway and gained a 'King'. War between this part and England raged for several hundred years, but it was never 'subjugated'.

Well, I agree it wasn't a nation-state in the modern sense (which as I said, was a concept which mostly came into being in the 19th century). They weren't even states in the modern sense, yet. I was just making the point that it was a recognized cultural-geographic entity. It was ruled by Norway (and England by Denmark), but Scotland was still Scotland and not Norway, and the people were considered Scots, with the exception of the northenmost parts that had Norse-speakers.

'Subjugation' is perhaps too strong a word, but certainly Scotland was dominated by the English. Much as Norway was de facto ruled by Denmark for four centuries, even though they too were a union (on paper).

Wales was never ever a nation state. Before the Roman occupation it was divided between tribes, as was the rest of Britain and Ireland. After the Romans left it reverted to tribal divisions again until it was final annexed by the Normans. My knowledge of Irish history is not so clear, but I think it to be similar to the Welsh, except that the annexation occurred later.

Well, both these examples would seem to hinge more on what you would qualify as a 'kingdom'. From the medieval perspective, the distinction between a 'king' and a 'tribal warlord' tended to depend solely on whether or not they'd been baptized. The situation gets worse since the medieval chroniclers, in their zeal to embellish their own past, usually elevated what were probably more local rulers to 'national' ones. (a pattern that repeated itself across Europe) It's difficult to gauge the extent of 'national cohesion', but I think it's beyond doubt that Anglo-Saxons, the Welsh, the Irish, the Danes etc all had some concept of a common identity, even at that time.

 

[Ken Natton]

Err… strictly speaking, Wales is a principality, but this is just terminology and not really that important. There’s a brilliant clip of Feynman, available to watch on YouTube – I can probably find the reference if anyone is actually interested – talking about getting too wrapped up in the terminology when you actually understand nothing whatever about what you are making such an unnecessary fuss about.

Your attempts to disqualify England’s right to be regarded as a country, SW VandeCarr, based entirely on the active political structures, ignores the greatest part of why England exists at all. England, the British Isles, The United Kingdom et al have rather a long and complex history, mostly steeped in questions such as whether the ordinary citizen should defer to the King, to the Pope, or only direct to God. Much blood has been spilled in the settlement of these questions and that history still arouses great passions today. To the largest extent, it is that history that is responsible for the complex setup of our political institutions. I’m not sure where in the world you are, SW VandeCarr, or what opportunities you might have to gain access to it. But there was a fairly recent television series called A History of Britain made by a history professor who works at one of the American universities, I forget which one. His name is Simon Schama. It tells this story in a deeply compelling way and you might emerge from watching it with a stronger sense of exactly what England is.

In any case, whatever objections you may see fit to raise, it is abundantly clear:

England is a country.

 

[Astronuc]

Simon Schama is currently at Columbia University in NY. He taught history at Cambridge (Christ's College), (1966-76) Oxford (Brasenose College) (1976-1980) and art history and history at Harvard (1980-1993) before coming to Columbia.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/faculty/Schama.html

I caught parts of his program. I'll have to revisit it.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

In any case, whatever objections you may see fit to raise, it is abundantly clear:

England is a country.

I said England was a country like Flanders or Castile are countries. Neither, afaik has political institutions which belong solely to them. They are parts of larger nation states. Castile, like England, was the historic center of political power in what became the Kingdom of Spain and which was, for a time, a great global power. The language of Castile, Castillano is the standard Spanish most people study in school just as the southern dialect of English is the standard English that is taught in schools around the world.

No one has identified a political institution which belongs solely to England. I never claimed one did not exist. I was asking, and so far, no one, including you, have given me an answer. The Westminster parliament and government, not to mention the Royal Family, belong to the United Kingdom. You may say that it is not necessary that England have political institutions of its own, but I think many English people might disagree. Perhaps, at least, legislation that applies only to England under devolution ought to be voted on only by English MPs.

BTW, I am well aware of England's long history. The institutions that once defined it have been spread beyond it to the extent that it has retained nothing for itself, or so it seems.

 

[Studiot]

No one has identified a political institution which belongs solely to England.

Perhaps you do not read my post#31?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

England has no parliamnent of its own?

Well I think the last invocation of the Witan was pre 1000 as I'm not sure Harold ever called one.
There is, theoretically, nothing to prevent a current monarch calling one though.

Well yes. Some kind of political institution could be created for England and England alone, but my point is that this has not happened even as devolution gave Scotland and Wales some political identity beyond just being a region of the UK. This, IMO creates some ambiguity as to what England actually is. Saying it's a country carries no legal weight nor confers any political identity. England is simply a region of the UK with its own history and traditions.

Then of course there is the Stannary and Stannary Court - no longer active in Devon but peculiar to Cornwall.

These are local Cornish institutions which in any case seem to be moribund.

Then there is the Manx Parliament (already mentioned I think).

Yes. Not only does the Manx legislature legislate for the Isle of Man, but it is not (in a constitutional sense) subordinate to Westminster. I'm not sure what this has to do with England other than to underscore the unusual political structure of the UK (which I'm trying to understand).

Scotland was not a nation state, it was part of the kingdom of Norway. A (small) part achieved independence from Norway and gained a 'King'. War between this part and England raged for several hundred years, but it was never 'subjugated'.

The end that phase of Scotland's history came when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England.

I think Scotland was very much an independent kingdom before 1603 at which time the Scottish Stuart dynasty accepted the crown of England uniting the England and Scotland in a personal union. I believe the two nation states maintained their own parliaments until the Act of Union in 1707.

Wales was never ever a nation state. Before the Roman occupation it was divided between tribes, as was the rest of Britain and Ireland. After the Romans left it reverted to tribal divisions again until it was finally annexed by the Normans.

Yes, it was never a nation state. However it does have a political identity as a principality. Moreover, since devolution, it has a legislature which however limited, belongs to Wales and Wales alone.

 

[Studiot]

You still haven't read my post#31.

The Witan was the prototype english parliament when England was a single country, separate from Scotland, Wales and Ireland. At that time, Scotland and England were single countries, Wales and Ireland were not - they were divided up amongst several rival tribes and posessed no overall national identity.

None of the old laws pertaining to the Witan have been repealed, as is more often the case than not in english law, so just because the last one was about 1000 years ago does not mean that another could not be legitimately convened tomorrow.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You still haven't read my post#31.

The Witan was the prototype english parliament when England was a single country, separate from Scotland, Wales and Ireland. At that time, Scotland and England were single countries, Wales and Ireland were not - they were divided up amongst several rival tribes and posessed no overall national identity.

None of the old laws pertaining to the Witan have been repealed, as is more often the case than not in english law, so just because the last one was about 1000 years ago does not mean that another could not be legitimately convened tomorrow.

That's interesting. I didn't address this because England was clearly a distinct kingdom until the creation of the UK in 1707. But are you saying that the Witan has some legal existence under current law? Just because some ancient laws may still apply doesn't mean the body that passed them has any current legal existence.

If it's true that this ancient institution could be actually made to function for England alone, then I would agree it would give England the political identity it currently seems to lack. An English parliament might be created within the Westminster parliament consisting of only the English MPs. They would sit as the Witan when legislating for England alone. But currently, this is not the case as I understand it.

 

[Ken Natton]

I caught parts of his program. I'll have to revisit it.

I do recognise that I perhaps had something of a predisposition to be fascinated by his account that maybe not everyone would have. But I do think that Schama made an excellent job of making the story compelling. And I liked what he said when he was interviewed about the series in answer to the criticism that it was just Schama’s version of the events. “Of course it is” he said. He’d never intended it to be anything else. It is the historians who claim that theirs is the definitive account that are the dishonest ones.

And perhaps some might say that I should have realized that Schama was Jewish from his name. But his own situation had not crossed my mind until, at the end of the episode that focussed on the long history of conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism, you see Schama in a synagogue, wearing a skull cap. The point of that scene is about the substantial Jewish population in Britain that existed as these events unfolded. But it did carry a nuance for me on the dispassion of Schama’s account of those events. It is a dispassion about these events that is still very difficult to find.

 

[Astronuc]

I think Scotland was very much an independent kingdom before 1603 at which time the Scottish Stuart dynasty accepted the crown of England uniting the England and Scotland in a personal union. I believe the two nation states maintained their own parliaments until the Act of Union in 1707.

The relationship between Scotland and England is rather interesting -

From a base of territory in eastern Scotland north of the River Forth and south of the River Oykel, the kingdom acquired control of the lands lying to the north and south. By the 12th century, the kings of Alba had added to their territories the English-speaking land in the south-east and attained overlordship of Gaelic-speaking Galloway and Norse-speaking Caithness; by the end of the 13th century, the kingdom had assumed approximately its modern borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#Modern_history

Although it had long been the de facto border, it was legally established in 1237, by the Treaty of York between England and Scotland,[1] with the exception of a small area around Berwick, which was taken by England in 1482. It is thus one of the oldest extant borders in the world, although Berwick was not initially fully annexed by England. (It was not included in Northumberland for parliamentary purposes until 1885.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Scottish_border

The history of England, Scotland and Ireland is of personal interest because I have lines of families extending to all three regions.

My patrilineal line comes from the border area of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Some in the family did quite well, including one who had quite an estate, which was lost when Cromwell and the Parliamentarians penalized Royalist sympathizers and supporters. Various wives came from Scotland and Ireland.

On my maternal side, I can trace families to London and surrounding counties, the Isle of Skye, Ireland, and the highlands of Scotland, and apparently Belgium.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The relationship between Scotland and England is rather interesting

The history of England, Scotland and Ireland is of personal interest because I have lines of families extending to all three regions.

On my maternal side, I can trace families to London and surrounding counties, the Isle of Skye, Ireland, and the highlands of Scotland, and apparently Belgium.

So do you consider yourself of English or British descent? My ancestry is Flemish Belgian and Belgium is now undergoing a historic identity crisis. England's identity issues may have begun when it became a French speaking nation in 1066. Yes, English survived as the language of the lowly, but to rise in Norman England, you had to speak French. I know all about having to speak French.

When England finally became English again, under the Tudors, it didn't last long. In 1603, the crown passed to the Stuarts and a real English man or women hasn't sat on the throne since. Edward VII had the family name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha! When he died in 1910, the Germans sent a whole delegation of princes to the funeral (other countries only sent one head of state). No doubt they considered Edward one of their own. In 1917 the Royal Family took the name Windsor as WWI raged on. The Royal Family may speak perfect English and be all that goes with being English (or is it British), but let's face it, they are Germans. There is no historic basis for the family name Windsor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral_of_Edward_VII

Now with devolution, I think it would be wonderful if the English could get an institution that really is English. It might be just formality, but who knows more about formalities than the English? Bring back the Witan!

 

[Astronuc]

So do you consider yourself of English or British decent?

Well considering the ancestors came from various parts of England, with most coming from the North (Lancashire/Yorkshire border), and others from Scotland and Ireland, I'm more or less of British ancestry by geography.

The royal family is rather irrelevant to me.

In modern terms, I'm Australian, but I live in the US for now. My family wandered a lot, and I guess I have that gene. It's possible I could end up in NZ, Bulgaria or Afghanistan (Badakshan province), or even N. Pakistan (Karakoram) before I die. Governments and national borders are an inconvenience for me.

When England finally became English again, under the Tudors, it didn't last long. In 1603, the crown passed to the Stuarts and a real English man or women hasn't sat on the throne since. Edward VII had the family name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha! When he died in 1910, the Germans sent a whole delegation of princes to the funeral (other countries only sent one head of state). No doubt they considered Edward one of their own. In 1917 the Royal Family took the name Windsor as WWI raged on. The Royal Family may speak perfect English and be all that goes with being English (or is it British), but let's face it, they are Germans. There is no historic basis for the family name Windsor.

Some of my ancestors supported the Stuarts, and most likely those living in the south (London and surrounding counties) were more partial to Cromwell and the Parliamentarians.

In some ways perhaps, I'm more British the Elizabeth II. On the other hand, the English (Angels and Saxons) are of Germanic ancestry.

 

[JaredJames]

So do you consider yourself of English or British decent?

That depends on where your ancestors come from (and how far back you go) and would be different for each person. I am Welsh. All of my family has come from Wales for many, many generations (I know of none who were from outside Wales). But then strictly speaking, trace it back far enough and you end up in some European country which invaded us at one time.

It's like asking someone from the states "do you consider yourself American?". Whilst it may well be that they are American citizens, aside from those descendants of Native Americans, they are all strictly speaking, immigrants descended from various other nationalities (Irish, English, Spanish French etc). So after 10 generations, do you then consider yourself descended from Americans or whichever original nationality your ancestors were?

So it comes down to what each person considers 'descent' means. Are we talking within the last few generations or are we going to roll back right to the beginning? I know this is a bit off topic, but I don't like the question of descent because of its vagueness.

I think the question of "which nationality are you?" is better as that answers what nationality a person actually is and isn't vague.

 

[Studiot]

but to rise in Norman England, you had to speak French.

As I recall, the most important language to be proficient in those days was still Latin.

Physics was even still conducted in Latin by some in Newton's day.

Incidentally it used to be offered as a major contributor to British success as the most successful post Roman european nation that the brits are the biggest mongrels (sorry polite = mixture) of the lot.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think the question of "which nationality are you?" is better as that answers what nationality a person actually is and isn't vague.

My question; "Are you of British or English descent?" was really another way to highlight the main point of discussion. If I were Scottish or Welsh, I might just leave it at that and not really emphasis the British part although I legally would be British and carry a British passport.

This seems to be a real phenomenon which has been driving devolution. As long as this is a fact of life in the UK, the English IMO, perhaps should look to their own identity beyond just waving the Cross of St George at international soccer matches.

Studiot, whom I take to be English, suggested reviving the ancient Anglo-Saxon assembly known as the Witan. Actually, it would be more than symbolic. If the English MPs simply sat as the Witan when legislating for England only, it would balance things out in terms of the distribution of power under devolution. There would be no need to create a parallel English parliament or full cabinet. At most a minister or two for England might be needed but perhaps not even that.

In Europe, much more than in North America, ancestry counts. Unless I could trace my ancestry back to the time of Hugh Capet, I could be never be "truly" French (slight exaggeration). Yes I could become a French citizen, but even that's not easy. People with non-French ancestry have an advantage if they come from former French colonies, but not if they come form another part of Europe or North America.

Obviously if you go back far enough, we are all Africans; "far enough" being perhaps 100,000 years or so; not that long really in the history of the planet.

 

[JaredJames]

Why would calling yourself Scottish or Welsh be any different to calling yourself English? All of us are British, but we each can choose to use either British as a title, or Welsh / Scottish / English depending on how we see ourselves. Some places don't even give you a choice, they either blanket it with British or give specifics.

I don't know why you're so hell bent on having an English parliament. Do you really believe it would make any difference to the way the country is run? Do you really think it would make the English people feel / act more English?

All I see it doing is costing the tax payer more in order to support a larger parliamentary structure (I don't like the devolution in Wales and Scotland).

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Why would calling yourself Scottish or Welsh be any different to calling yourself English? All of us are British, but we each can choose to use either British as a title, or Welsh / Scottish / English depending on how we see ourselves. Some places don't even give you a choice, they either blanket it with British or give specifics.

I don't know why you're so hell bent on having an English parliament. Do you really believe it would make any difference to the way the country is run? Do you really think it would make the English people feel / act more English?

All I see it doing is costing the tax payer more in order to support a larger parliamentary structure (I don't like the devolution in Wales and Scotland).

I've just always been very interested in England and it's history. I've devoted myself to the English language and studies in general since I was in primary school, but I still make mistakes like "decent" when I mean "descent".

As for a separate English parliament, that's too complicated and unnecessary. However, why should Scottish MPs get to vote on projects for England when English MPs can't vote on projects for Scotland that come under the Scottish Parliament's purview? The idea for the revived Witan is that it functions within the existing structure.

Beyond that, it makes it easier to see England as a country rather than just a historical region like the old provinces of France. Besides, you're Welsh. This conversation is between me and the English.

 

[OmCheeto]

And why is my encyclopaedia published in Chicago?



hmmm... I wonder what they have to say about this?

Index (page 845)

England (constituent unit, U.K.)

archaeology 203
cricket 309
rugby 317​

There you are then. England is a constituent unit of the U.K.

And from the topics listed, it appears to be unique only as a geographical region, and as is the case here in the colonies, a place with associated sports teams.

Kind of like New Jersey I guess.