Talk:England and Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject UK geography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law societies[edit]

Just so anyone under any other impression can be aware that the England and Wales are still a single entity in the judicial system

Average Earthman 17:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cricket team[edit]

"The England and Wales team (often abbreviated simply as England)" - has anyone ever called the cricket team anything but plain "England"? The Board officially mentions Wales, yes, but not the team. 30 June 2005 13:46 (UTC)

No, no one's ever called it the England and Wales team, because it's not. It's the England & Wales Cricket Board (who look after cricket at all levels not just international) but the team is actually just England that is fielded. It's not the England and Wales team. Wales has no team, but Welsh players may join the England team. According the the ECB website:,185,QA.html : "It's always been the England team that take the field right back to the first Test in 1887. Welsh players are accepted as playing for England as Wales has no international side as recognised by ICC." So I'm going to modify that paragraph. In fact, it might as well be removed. 10 March 2006 14:51 (UTC)

  • Reword it to clarify, but don't blank the whole paragraph. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The rules are different at test level I believe. Numerous Scottish players have played for 'England' in test cricket in the past. I recently recall at least 1 Scots player who played for both the Scottish 1-day team AND the English 5-day team in fairly close succession, I'm fairly sure. Badgerpatrol 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PS- 'There is, however, a Wales team that plays in some domestic competitions...'- is there an officially recognised Wales representative team? I have never heard of it, although I'm not a mad-keen cricket fan. The only Welsh domestic team I can name OTTOM head is Glamorgan. They are A welsh cricket team, but not THE Welsh cricket team. Badgerpatrol 00:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Historically and in common use the team is called "England" but since last summer there are a few instances of it being referred to as as England and Wales, so it's possible that this may pass into common usage in the future. There is also a "Welsh Cricket Association" (WCA) which is the Governing Body of Welsh Amateur Cricket, so the other possibility is of Wales developing a recognised international team. Indeed their constitution has as an aim: "(I) To arrange international matches, competitions and other fixtures as may from time to time be deemed advisable." See --Aroberts 08:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Having looked in depth at the ECWB's website, there seems to be a Wales team that occasionally plays limited-overs cricket (as far as I can see, their last game was against Notts in 2005 [1]). I have replaced the comment (slightly rephrased) in the text. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that team is actually the Wales Minor Counties team (i.e. those that aren't Glamorgan). They lost in the first round of the C&G trophy, which is normal. Average Earthman 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Wales cricket team play friendlies against "England" once a year in a limited overs match. it's been going on for about five or six years now. Wales won the first gam,e but have been beaten every other time. The Wales team (at least used to be) allowed one "guest" player like Kallis.
Scotland on tyhe other hand are totally seperate from England and no Scot-only player can play for England. This hasn't always been the case but it certaintly is now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

What is the UK?[edit]

Erm.. if England and Wales is a state, and Scotland and Northern and Ireland are separate states, then what is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? 5 January 2006 21:50 (UTC)

The UK is a composite state in Public International Law terms, i.e. the whole is recognised as the nation for some international purposes, but it is divided into constitutent law areas also somewhat confusingly called states. This distinction gives one a British nationality and a domicile in one of the states, and that unique law defines your status and capacities wherever you may travel in the world. David91 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that most would argue that Scotland and Wales are not states, since they are not sovereign- ie the individual governments of those territories do not have supreme authority. NI may be an exception, since I believe that (assuming, constitutionally speaking, that nominal supreme power lies with Brenda) her position as monarch of NI is separate from her position as Queen of the UK. The UK is a state; NI may be a state, Scotland, England and Wales (I suspect) are not states (assuming Wales is included in the United Kingdom in the first place!). I don't know about Man, the Channel Islands etc; they may be different. All very confusing. There are numerous experts on constitutional law in the UK (I am not one) on Wikipedia who may be able to clarify this, if you feel it's an important issue. Of course, if you can find an objective, reliable source that explicitly defines each of the home nations as separate states under international law, then put it back in! All the best, Badgerpatrol 03:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I know this is ages late, but I just wanted to chime in and correct a misconception in the above paragraph that was not discussed later. The Queen's position in Northern Ireland is not separate from her position in the UK, because Northern Ireland is part of the UK. While Northern Ireland is separate legal entity just as Scotland is because it has a separate legal system, the Queen is the head of state of the single kingdom known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The "and" there should not be taken to mean that from a legal standpoint Great Britain and Northern Ireland are separate; that's why it's "United Kingdom of" and not "Kingdoms of". --Jfruh (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not something you can argue about. We are simply stating the law as it currently stands. The criterion is not, nor has it ever been, a question of sovereignty. This is a simple Conflict of Laws issue and it is not at all confusing to lawyers. I regret that lay people do get confused because of the multiple uses of words like "state". This is understandable. But I can assure you that the statement is completely correct in legal terms. Sadly, you are adding you own personal opinion on the page. I have placed a more complete explanation on English law. David91 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hallo David- I am not stating my personal opinion on this page- quite the opposite in fact! Please point to a reliable source stating independently that the home nations are separate states under international law. Badgerpatrol 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have altered the wording to minimise confusion- let me know what you think, and thanks for your quick responses! Badgerpatrol 03:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
S'OK. I just happened to be passing. You will find it useful to read my page on states for these purposes. And also please note that there are two types of international law. I have edited your last edit to avoid confusion. Public International Law deals with the relationship between de jure states in the sense that you mean. Private International Law does treat constituent law elements as separate states. David91 03:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

wales is a principality yet there is no mention of that.or the sheep shagging.

Yeah very 'funny' and quite racist! Some people need to grow up! Amlder20 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is a consequence all this that if Scotland were to leave the UK, the resulting country would be called "United Kingdom of England and Wales and Northern Ireland", rather than "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" given that England and Wales are legally one entity? Duncan McAlister 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I want to know what the resulting state would be called if Scotland seceeded from the UK, "United Kingdom of England and Wales and Northern Ireland" doesn't sound right does it? (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

'England and Wales are legally one entity'. This is only correct in respect of the legal system. That is, there is no longer a legal system in Wales separate to that of England. There is no political entity known as England and Wales. As for what the state will be called once Scotland achieves independence - I hope they will go for the honest approach this time and name it in the same terms as they think of it, either as Greater England, or as the English Empire. Dai caregos (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Depending on what the Irish (NI and ROI) do, maybe Avalonia would be appropriate... Wardog (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of separate laws?[edit]

Quoth the article:

This was later repealed in 1967 and current laws use "England and Wales" as a single entity.

Does this mean that it is now possible for Parliament to pass laws only for England or only for Wales, or to devolve law-making powers to the Welsh Assembly? --Jfruh (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It has always been possible for Parliament to do that, and it already does. Owain (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess then I don't understand what it means for England and Wales to be a single legal entity separate from, say, Scotland. --Jfruh (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
They are separate court systems. See Scots law and English law. Owain (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Parliament can pass laws for the Uk or for England and Wales, or for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland seperately. The Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly can also pass laws for their respective countries. The Welsh Assembly will be able to make 'Measures' which the Queen will make law from May 2007. All very confusing!

I am interested, it is possible for Wales to have it's own laws and remain part of the England and Wales legal system? Don't some parts of English law apply to Scotland e.g. Terrorism acts and broadcasting laws? Do you believe we will have our own Court System for Wales one day? Amlder20 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Parliament can pass laws only for even numbered houses on Smith Street, Smithton, if it wants to, and it can give them their own parliament to devolve its powers to as well. I don't see what all the confusion is about, except people assuming that court systems, laws and law-making institutions are always geographically contiguous. They don't have to be and have not been in Britain since the first Act of Union with Scotland.GSTQ 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The act of union with Scotland was not the first. Amlder20 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

End o' article speculation[edit]

Quoth the end of the article:

The Government of Wales Act 2006 created new powers for the National Assembly for Wales as of May 2007 including the ability to make laws to be called Welsh Assembly Measures. Once these start to be made, and as Westminster responds with more England only laws, it is widely expected that the concept of England and Wales as a single legal entity will start to weaken.

Now, everything I know about this subject comes from following the discussion about this page, but that last bit isn't true, right? I mean, there alredy are some laws that only apply to England and some that only apply to Wales, and so it the larger scheme of things it doesn't matter whether those laws are passed by the UK Parliament or the Welsh Assembly -- the point is that a single court system covers both England and Wales, and nothing about the Govt. of Wales Act 2006 will change that, right? --Jfruh (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain you are right, but IANAL. —Nightstallion (?) 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right..

The courts of England & Wales will continue to interpret laws of The United Kingdom Parliament whether they apply to England alone, or to England and Wales, or to Wales alone.

The courts of England & Wales will also continue to interpret measures passed by the Welsh Assembly which apply to Wales alone.

Mossley10 17:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think whats meant by this was, there will be two laws in England and Wales, where Welsh Law (Measures) will be laws on Education, Health etc, whilst English law in Wales will be courts and legal procedures. Obviously areas that are not controlled by the Welsh assembly will be controlled by English law. It just means that English law still applies, but there will be a seperate Law in Wales also. It also depends on what the writer means, the criminal laws etc or just education, health, Welsh Language etc. Amlder20 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the GoW2006m itself to split England and Wales as two jurisdictions, but it is seen by many, if not most, as the logical conclusion. Already the new Welsh Government has agreed to look at the possibility of devolving criminal justice to Wales. That would be the certain death knell of "England and Wales" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion[edit]

Every single item on this page is already in the article on Wales (and treated with more depth). The article serves no value —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowded (talkcontribs) 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, this article is pointless. Iammadeofjelly (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that this article should actually replace the seperate articles of England, Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


The football sentence needs adjusting. Don't the Welsh teams play in the English football league. ie Cardiff and Swansea? I do not know what the actual situation is though MortimerCat 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And Wrexham. They are also 3 Welsh teams in the English non-league football system. Paul-L 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
As it's written now, it refers to the England and Wales international teams, which are distinct. Not sure if you are referring to a previous version? Badgerpatrol 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not all the welsh teams play in the English league, Wales has it's own league system as well, it's just not as rich. All of the welsh teams compete in the FA Wales Cup, regardless of whether they play in England or Wales.Iammadeofjelly (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not correct. Welsh clubs who play in the English leagues are barred from competing in the Welsh Cup since 1995, but from 1997-2008 in a bid to screen matches involving the larger clubs, BBC Wales have sponsored the FAW Premier Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyswynne (talkcontribs) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal of content[edit]

Wales being a Principality has no effect on Wales being a Country. It is a common mistake to believe that a Principality is some lesser type of country. There are examples of places that are a Principality, a Country, a Nation and a state (Monaco being the first to mind). The line that says that Wales is a Principality and not a country is incorrect. I will delete it ina week unless anyone gives good reason not to - September 18th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:38, 18 September 2007

I fully agree with this --Snowded 01:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A very stupid argument[edit]

The Principality of Wales, just a silly title that revealed that at one time Wales was governed by different sovereign princes does not make Wales less of a country than Leichtenstein or Monaco, but this stupid idea that a Principality is not a country is a false statement if there ever was one. It's like saying a Duchy is not a country because it's not a Kingdom, I'd like to see how the people of Luxembourg would react to that.

Wales is a country, Wales is in union with England legally, but still holds a distinct country like status alongside England (just that Wales is not sovereign, there's a difference), which is why a National Assembly and not a Regional Assembly exists. This myth that a principality can't make a country is just that, a Myth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales is a principality; that does not demerit its status as a country. It is a significant part of our country's past - both as a separate entity and as a part of the United Kingdom. The "Great Prince", Llewelyn ap Iorwerth was both a powerful force in Wales and a major influence on the other side of Offa's Dyke, having allegedly influenced the King to create Magna Carta. Those who use it as a disparaging term have not grasped its historical or cultural importance. I'm grateful that it is a title in the British monarchy and that the Prince of Wales has made a concerted effort to learn about Welsh culture and to give several speeches in the Welsh language. Whether one is a monarchist or not, one would have to acknowledge that there has been a definite change over the last century - prior to the twentieth century, the Prince of Wales would rarely visit the nation. Today, the establishment realises that it needs to recognise Wales as being a vital part of the Union and a great contributor to British culture. I think it would be best to remove the reference to the Principality having 'no constitutional basis' - this is sheer nonsense, and the reference cited does not support the statement (p. 661 does contain an entry on the Principality, but it does not refer to the Principality having no constitutional basis). As with so many other institutions in British life, they do not have to be in the statute books to be considered a common custom - such as the UK national anthem. The UK has no official constitution to begin with, so to suggest that the Principality has no constitutional basis is a non-statement, as you would have to say the same thing about the entire nation. I also despise that foolish myth that Wales is not a country - it has the same recognition as England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Romans - in England & Wales![edit]

Two points. For the first I'd just like clarification - in what sense is 'England and Wales ... a political ... unit with the United Kingdom'? (By the way, shouldn't that read '... within the United Kingdom').

The second is that in the second paragraph it states that 'England and Wales were first administered as a single unit by the Romans' This isn't possible, as neither England nor Wales existed at the time the Romans were in Britain. England, because the English didn't arrive in Britain until well after the Romans left in the year 410. And Wales, because the word Welsh (i.e. the Germanic/Saxon term meaning foreigner) wouldn't have been used, as the people of Britain were called British by the Romans. I'm happy to make amendments. But I'd prefer agreement before any changes are made. :) (Dai caregos (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)).

On the second point, the History of Wales article puts it much better: "Up to and during the Roman occupation of Britain, Wales was not a separate country; all the native inhabitants of Roman Britain spoke Brythonic languages (a sub-family of the Celtic languages) and were regarded as Britons (or Brythons)."Cop 663 (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, Cop 663. Go for it. Dai caregos (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Wales[edit]

The article includes the line : "During the evolution of the United Kingdom, Wales has been considered a principality, the Principality of Wales, rather than an incorporated country, despite constituting a separate country ethnically and culturally."

The Principality was not the whole of Wales, but about two thirds of it, mainly in the north. It was only the Principality of Wales that was made part of the Kingdom of England by the Statute of Rhuddlan, enacted on 3 March 1284. These territories did not include a substantial swathe of land from Pembrokeshire through south Wales to the Welsh Borders which was largely in the hands of the Marcher Lords and were not subject to English law.

Henry VIII annexed this land with the Laws in Wales Act 1535, which integrated the whole of Wales directly into the English legal system and the "Lordships Marchers within the said Country or Dominion of Wales" were allocated to existing and new shires.

Notice that the act called Wales "the said country"

Debate please. Jongleur100 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We have had the country debate to many times for me to what to repeat it. The above is in the main accurate, but it was not called a Principality per se so the first paragraph should go and be replaced by something better phrased. I would think (i) Stature of incorporated remaining parts of Wales (descriptions, ref. Treaty of Montgomery), (ii) Laws in Wales act as at present (iii) note that Wales was considered part of the Kingdom of England at the time of the acts of Union in Scotland and Ireland and the reflection of that in the flag etc. --Snowded (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My point was that people confuse the 'Principality' with the 'country' of Wales. After Henry annexed the Marches the country ceased being a Principality, but was still a 'country', even though it was legally intergrated into England. Jongleur100 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Principality is still in use (maybe more than pre Henry VIII) but in the context of wales it is synonymous with country - see agreed wording on Countries of the United Kingdom. It needs rewording though --Snowded (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Belatedly noticed this discussion. Jongleur100 is quite right, so I have had a go at rewording the relevant sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought those changes were a real improvement - thanks --Snowded TALK 10:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Times[edit]

Not sure I agree that London has been the capital of the UK since Roman times. It could only have been the capital of the UK since the UK was formed and hasn't even been the capital of Britannia or England since Roman times. Might be best to leave it out completely as E & W are only a legal entity i.e they share many of the same laws, rather than a political entity. Would you mind having a rethink? Cheers. Daicaregos (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I was reacting to the previous edit with implied it had been capital since the dawn of time. Will correct --Snowded TALK 22:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fellow South Britons![edit]

Sorry about that, but it's one way to gain people's attention! I presume that a fair proportion of those contributing to this talk page will be either English or Welsh. According to an article recently created, we live in South Britain (not southern Britain) and we "may correctly be termed South Britons". May we, indeed? I'm not sure which planet the contributor lives on but it certainly does not include modern Wales, or England. If anybody has views on this misleading article (I've changed the wording of the intro, although I suspect it will be reverted again, so you may need to check the History for the original text), which in my humble opinion reflects the POV of a tiny minority - if indeed that minority even exists in sufficient numbers even to be called that - perhaps they might like to have a look at it and its talk page? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just mischief making I think. I've proposed it be merged into England and Wales, so that a passing reference can be made there if at all. In the meantime an eye needs to be kept on the page's content so that it doesn't sow confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Id support the merge / redirect to this page, that "south Britain" page offers no value or use. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Country infobox[edit]

I know we can have some flexibility around where they are used, and it doesn't have to mean we are asserting that "England & Wales" is a country per se, but the recent addition of a country infobox seems misleading and confusing to me. As the opening sentence says, it is about a jurisdiction with a common legal system, which happens to comprise two out of the four countries/parts of the current UK, not an acknowledged geopolitical entity of any sort in its own right. N-HH talk/edits 17:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox is unnecessary and confusing. It should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There's three legal system jurisdictions in the UK. The other two have infoboxes. I added the infobox so that the jurisdictions can be compared. I don't see how it's confusing. It appears to "consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share". Since England and Wales share many institutions and legislation exclusively, I think they very much do form a geopolitical entity of sorts. I don't see how it's any less of a geopolitical entity then England. Rob (talk/edits) 18:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
But it's not a country. So no need for a country infobox. How many times do you need to be reminded that what you think is of no relevance here whatsoever? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so we won't use a perfectly suitable infobox to compare jurisdictions, simply because the jurisdiction isn't the precise entity of which the infobox is designed for? Isn't that irrational?
If you're not certain you're correct, you're stating what you think. Unless what I think is incorrect, it is of complete relevance.
Rob (talk/edits) 19:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, Scotland and Northern Ireland have infoboxes, but they have them as countries (or whatever NI happens to be). Just like England and Wales each have infoboxes as countries. As I say, it's confusing to also have one for England and Wales combined, simply on the basis that they share a legal system within the UK, unlike the other parts. The structure of the UK and the relationship between its different parts is confusing enough at the best of times. Why make it more so? N-HH talk/edits 19:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Completely correct. Precisely why I removed the info' box. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I have said why briefly. To repeat, it's a region in which many legislations are exclusively defined, just like England. On top of that, it has it's own exclusive legal system. Evidently, this has more characteristics of a geopolitical entity than England does.
To expand, as you're probably aware, when there are powers devolved exclusively to Northern Ireland and Scotland, the British Government effectively acts as a parliament for England and Wales for these reserved powers. This can also be the case for Great Britain and England–Wales–Northern Ireland. However, what's unique about England and Wales, is that the economic policy is reserved by British Government across this jurisdiction to a much great extent then in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The economic statistics on England and Wales, clearly displayed in the infobox, are especially useful because of this. Comparing economic performance of Scotland and Northern Ireland, to England and Wales together, is significant if you wanted to evaluate the Scottish and Northern Irish devolved legislatures performance in this field, among other things.
If anything, it's misinforming to not including the infobox, and somehow suggesting this is politically, significantly different to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The UK has a complex political structure, that is not simply divided into 4 countries, and surely suggesting otherwise is oversimplification.
You could even change it to the geopolitical organisation infobox, which in this case would be identically, if the technical name of the infobox is an issue. Rob (talk/edits) 22:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to be aware of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and its implications in leading to quite different policies on a very wide range of matters between England and Wales. It would be downright misleading to suggest, with an infobox, that England and Wales are a single "country" in any meaningful sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. England and Wales is neither a geopolitical organisation nor, to repeat, a country. This is not difficult and no one has so far agreed with you Rob. Why do people have to waste everyone's time like this and start launching into convoluted pseudo-justifications based on their own logic on everything? Just drop it. No one is arguing for oversimplification – the existence of this page and its content make the point that these things are not always simple. Relevant information can be included in the main text. Adding an inappropriate infobox doesn't help with that. Yes England and Wales are often considered together (eg in some government statistics and to some extent in a legal sense) but so, in their own ways, are Northern Ireland and the Republic, Devon and Cornwall, the US and Canada, and China and Taiwan to name but a few possible pairings. We don't give those country or geopolitical organisation infoboxes and nor should we. N-HH talk/edits 23:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
How exactly is it not a geopolitical entity? It's a geographical area with significant political structure (many exclusive legislations and a legal system). Non of those have significant political structure, they don't have any exclusive legislations or a joint legal system. I don't know how you can compare those to England and Wales, they're not even remotely similar. Rob (talk/edits) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Everything, from my back garden upwards, is a geopolitical entity at some level, but you have to exercise some discretion and draw the line somewhere. Yes they share a legal system but not an entire corpus of legislation, especially since devolution; again, since devolution, Wales has its own government and legislature; and the government they do share as part of the UK is shared of course with the two other parts of the UK too – it does not mark them out as a discrete unit. As for the examples I threw in, of course they're not exact, as I noted, but Devon and Cornwall for example share a police force between them, and a legal system with the rest of England. Ireland north and south share various institutions and are often counted as a unit for "Ireland-wide" statistics. Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has agreed with you so far and it's unlikely you're going to persuade anyone. Why not save yourself the bother? Pages don't have to have infoboxes, even if the appropriate one can be found. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the act, and from analysis, I think (because I'm lazy, and can't be arsed to extensively analyse a 211 page act, my sincere apologies if that's not acceptable by your standards) it doesn't contradict what I have said. I will admit, it is slightly misleading, but the lead clearly suggests that this is a jurisdiction that is not a "country", and the infobox is used on many geopolitical entities' articles. That England is a country, removes any meaningful sense to the word anyway. I can see, no matter how reasonable my argument is, this is not going to be accepted by any English or Welsh man. Rob (talk/edits) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The inclusion of that info' box on this article is inappropriate and disconcerting. Enough said! Let's move on! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
As usually Gareth, you've repeated what has already been stated; the former that I have already clearly disregarded, and the latter that I have agreed with, however do not see as being a strong enough counter-argument. You don't like the edit, because it suggests, as should be suggested, that England and Wales form a strong geopolitical entity that in many ways is comparable to the countries of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Rob (talk/edits) 16:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Do not presume to *know* why other editors "don't like the edit".
Comments such as yours immediately above this post do nothing to improve your standing here. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Of course, England and Wales used to be a country, which is more than can be said for Northern Ireland. And perhaps the question will need to be reviewed before too long. Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

England and Wales did not used to be a country - the Kingdom of England used to be a country (and its article has an infobox, for what it's worth). No need to confuse anyone any more, surely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You say that as if someone is claiming England and Wales is a country. The term country has nothing to do with this. Similar geopolitical entities to this have infoboxes. California is not a country and it has an infobox similar to that of Scotland. The simple extent to which the infobox is misleading does not justify excluding it. I give up, you lot are being irrational. Rob (talk/edits) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No one's being irrational, everyone just happens to disagree with you on this matter of judgment, for reasons that have been clearly stated; and we have of course been suggesting you should give it up. California may, and indeed should, have a infobox (which is a specific US state infobox btw), but as you yourself point out, the nearest comparison with that is the individual constituent country, not some doubling-up of any of them. N-HH talk/edits 13:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Politically, California is significantly more similar to England and Wales together. There are more exclusive legislations and organisations covering both countries. The only passable reason is that it's misleading, and that very much is irrational. Rob (talk/edits) 16:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing "what I happen to think" with what is necessarily "right" or "rational" and "what others who disagree with me think" with "irrational". And, for the record, it is indeed misleading to suggest that England and Wales as a unit has some geopolitical essence similar to each of the two countries separately, simply because they share some history, some institutions and a legal system (some of which are of course in turn shared with the other countries of the UK). And, as has also already been pointed out, pages don't have to have infoboxes anyway. N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
England and Wales is in fact a recognized area or subdivision (territory) the UK as it is assigned EAW in ISO 3166-2:GB. Geopolitical entities is not a requirement of a country, N-HH, secondly it was a state, the Kingdom of England and Wales replacing the Kingdom of England and Cornwall, although in both incarnations they are commonly referred to as the Kingdom of England, which is that not mislead to use the common name? England is not a geopolitical country (which would make it a nation) either as it has no government of its own and still has a country infobox. England and Wales is a contingent area (geo) and has the same legal system and political institutes (political in nature). The UK is not a country as it has multiple countries (thus would be term an empire or multi-country state) and should there for not use a country infobox but it does. There is nothing mislead about using the "precisely wrong" but workable infobox to non-editor readers as they don't look at the wiki code (edit screen), just don't fill in the inapplicable field and they don't appear (or use N/A) for example in government type. As we have two quick found case examples in England and the UK in using workable close infoboxes that defy your position N-HH and Ghmyrtle. Spshu (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

English law[edit]

On 13 November 2014 Gareth Griffith-Jones reverted 2 edits by Nenniu with the comment Unsourced nonsense reverted. (TW). I think Gareth Griffith-Jones's comment is unwarranted. The reverted text was:

while English Law was initially codified by Alfred the Great in his 'Legal Code' of 893 and heavily influenced by continental systems under Charlemagne.

The nonsense comment may have arisen from the wikilink to Doom Book. However, if you look at Doom book the contribution makes sense. It is unfortunate to have different articles titled Doom Book and Doom book; I'll look into renaming one of them. Nunniu's contribution is useful, we should and reinstate at least some of it. The text is sourced by a reference in the Doom book article, but as I don't have access to the book cited there I won't repeat the citation here. However, the influence of Charlemagne's legal systems on the Doom book is not mentioned in Doom book or in Alfred the Great#Legal reform, so we should not mention this here. If there is a reliable source for Charlemagne's influence then please update all relevant articles. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've restored some of Nenniu's text Yellow check.svg Partly done: Verbcatcher (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Verbcatcher for the explanation and for your subsequent additions. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)