Talk:England

Flag, Motto, Anthem

Can we please have the royal banner restored to the England page please. The Royal Standard of England, otherwise known in contemporary terms as the Three Lions has been used extensively in England for centuries since it's adoption by Richard I on his ascension to the throne. This in turn comes from the Royal Emblems depicting lions from the Norman Dynasty. The Royal Banner does not represent any particular land or area, it does however represent the sovereignty of the Royal Family. To say that it has no informal use today is a very poor reflection of English culture, the most famous example of the three lions being utilised is on the crest of the English National Football Team. A more official use of this is in the top-left and bottom-right quadrants of the current Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, and on other royal/governmental insignia and logo's. Looking at the England article in comparison with earlier versions it is missing its famous motto 'Dieu et mon droit', again used extensively prior to England joining the union. It is also missing governmental information. I would like to remind editors that England has not been dissolved. It continues to remain a constituent country of the UK represented in modern day terms by its own separate legal system of England and Wales. In other words the page should not be reduced to merely just geography and statistics. England should be given better representation as a country.

- H (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the motto, 'Dieu et mon droit' means 'God and my right', referring to the monarch's right from god to rule the country. It has little to do with England in its entirety, and nothing to do with its people. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Royal Standard, I agree the three lions are representative of England, I'm just not aware the Royal Standard of England, last used officially in the 16th century is still used today. Source? Rob (talk | contribs) 01:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dieu et mon droit was used at the Battle of Gisors by Richard I as a battle cry, and later officially adopted by Edward III. It referred to his right to rule as you pointed out, and in modern times can be seen on the current British passport underneath the crest. The Royal Standard can be seen being used extensively, with the England football team being one of its many cultural usages. In more official terms it forms two quadrants of the current royal standard, which symbolise England as part of the United Kingdom. Individually the royal standard for England would consist of the three lions without the additions of the Scottish and Irish flags. A lot of England, including its flags and motto's etc is not de jure, it's de facto and simply cultural. But just because its not set in stone doesn't necessarily mean these things don't form an important part of English culture and history. - H — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWallis1993 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a source of contemporary usage of the Royal Standard, and that 'Dieu et mon droit' is the motto of England? That it is present on the Royal coat of arms of the British Crown, which happens to double up as a coat of arms for the UK, really isn't surprising, nor conclusive. Rob (talk | contribs) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Standard of England has a variety of active uses. The arms of both the Football Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board have a design featuring three lions passant, representing the Royal Arms of England. In 1997, and again in 2002, the Royal Mint issued a one pound coin featuring the three lions again to represent England, and also first/second class stamps with the arms. Several English towns depict the Royal Banner upon their seals, such as the arms of Faversham Town Council. It features on the tabard worn by the English officers of arms. It is also featured on garments worn at the state opening of parliament, at the coronation of the british monarch, at state funerals and also at the annual procession and service of the order of the garter. These are just some well known contemporary uses of the arms. Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the British monarchy IN England, and appears on a scroll beneath the English version of the Coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Notice that there are different versions of the United Kingdom's coat of arms, and in England - this is the motto used. There is a different version in Scotland with a different motto used. You must remember that unlike other countries England is represented on a legal and governmental level by the monarchy itself, hence the monarchy's motto and arms become England motto and Arms. This can be observed throughout all of Englands history except during the English civil war. - H - H (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Do you have any evidence of contemporary usage of the actually Royal Standard? Not just the three lions, which I'm well aware is used represent contemporary England.

There is no English version of anything. I don't think Wikipedia is very clear on this matter, however the so-called English versions of the coat of arms are now use throughout the UK and abroad, with the Scottish versions being largely redundant since the time of the Stuarts.

You will need to provide a source that the 'monarchy's motto and arms become England motto and Arms'.

Rob (talk | contribs) 03:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no English version of anything? Of course there is. Unless in your opinion you believe that a country of roughly 53,000,000 people and well over 1000 years of history, who've been calling themselves English since 897, don't have a motto or royal banner?....... this is an extraordinarily misplaced belief. And you only need look at the court system of England and Wales in contrast with the separate legal system in Scotland, where you will find both the coat of arms and motto I mention here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Banner_of_England#As_a_banner

In terms of the royal banner like I said as a constituent of the United Kingdom the royal banner IS in use...just alongside other flags of the United Kingdom in the current standard. This does not mean that it ceases to exist. http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/RoyalStandard.aspx

Please refer to the Duchy of Lancaster (a royal duchy) for individual use of the banner, merged with the crown since 1399. - H - H (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2014

@HWallis1993: In what way is England's “own separate legal system of England and Wales” separate? Daicaregos (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

England and Wales has a seperate legal system from Scotland. This is known as English Law. Scotland on the other hand has Scottish Law, which it retained after the acts of Union. Together with Northern Ireland Law it makes up the three legal systems of the United Kingdom. - H 90.219.162.124 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How is that separate ... or relevant? This is the England article, not England & Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're going to need to provide a source of contemporary usage of a non-defaced Royal Standard that is not part of another Royal Standard, being used to represent England. In case you didn't know, the English nation is relatively new. Pre-1950, the people living in England did not distinguish between English and British, and thus England has little to represent its self. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Daicaregos why don't you spare me the sarcasm? I gave it as an example of where the phrase 'Dieu et mon droit' can be seen in contemporary use.

Again Rob I can see you seem to be deliberately undermining English heritage. 'England has little to represent its self' and that 'the English nation is relatively new'?! This is a seriously misguided view and frankly quite disgusting. You seem to be taking a specifically anti-English line here, and I will be attempting to file a complaint again. Every other country on Wikipedia has their heraldic representation present (France, Scotland, Germany, Spain etc) If your going to argue it has no official status then why show the England flag at all? - The answer is because it is a very important symbol of England. Why not show the shield instead of the flag if you are going to argue that actual contemporary usage is a prerequisite for inclusion into the article. I personally, like the rest of England, believe that what the Royal Banner and St Georges cross symbolise is far more important than any official use. Being born and raised in England, I know this to be the case. To claim that we have little to represent ourselves is absolutely outrageous, and shows you lack any real perspective on English culture. Furthermore, and as you pointed out yourself, you do not own this article - therefore I will not be going to great lengths to prove the already obvious. It is quite clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of England and its history that the three lions is a proud symbol used over 800 years of history since it's adoption. - H - H (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Neither of my questions was sarcastic. Your statement was complete nonsense, but I decided to give you the opportunity to defend it, rather than say so. Instead of backing up your argument, you chose to attack me. Please read WP:NPA.

Dieu et mon droit is not England's moto, it is the British monarch's moto and is used in many circumstances that have nothing to do with England e.g. passports. Daicaregos (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This conversation has been about the motto of England and it's coat of arms. I was referring the the current arms of the united kingdom of which England is a part to back this up, and from which the motto originates. In addition I used the courts for contemporary usage of the specific coat of arms of England, in contrast to the Scottish courts who use a separate one. And as I have said previously England is a very old country, where the monarch has represented the country on a political level. Fair enough about sarcasm, I was just generally referring to your derisive tone throughout the conversation so far, but what's nonsensical about the rest? Try reading the whole conversation before you judge. Then again observing the fundamentally anti-English line of editing that has taken place I hardly find it surprising I have to face such criticism. I notice Wales, Scotland and pretty much every other country are allowed to enjoy motto's, and virtually every one is allowed a royal or Presidential emblem or flag. There is a deliberate attempt at undermining English culture here and I will be reporting it. - H - H (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that. In answer to your question, What's nonsensical about that?; stating that a legal system is separate, when it relates to two countries is nonsensical. You have demonstrated that the coat of arms and moto is used in England and in Wales. I have showed it is used in many countries. It is not specifically an English coat of arms and moto. It represents the British monarch, not England. Consequently, it shouldn't be shown on the infobox in this article. Daicaregos (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at this piece on English National Identity. You might think great of your English nationality, separate from that of the Scots, Welsh, and Irish, but your ancestors from the 18th and 19th centuries did not. They saw themselves as British (or English, meaning British), and they did not distinguish between the United Kingdom, and what they called England. Maybe this is a harsh reality for yourself, but numerous reliable sources show this to be the case. England lacks officially used symbols because when Great Britain was united into one kingdom, these were adapted to become those of GB, and later the UK. I'm not anti-English, I've lived most my life in England, but yes, I would consider myself British, not English; not that I actually bother to distinguish between the terms. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Rob984; my ancestors extend further back than those of the 19th Century. To your surprise it may seem. England has been a country since the 927 AD. It has only been part of the United Kingdom since 1707, that’s 314 years out of a total of 1087 years of history since its establishment as a unified state. I think you would be unpleasantly surprised at just how many of the English consider themselves ‘English’ rather than British. This is the reason we have separate sports teams. And to be clear this is coming from someone who is half-Scottish and half-English. I enjoy both my nations’ heritages separately, and feel rewarded in doing so. I would suggest you go to Glasgow in Scotland and suggest they are British...you may be in for quite a shock. Or you might receive a similar reaction in an English pub before the match. People are no longer proud of being British; this can be reflected in the fact that there is an upcoming Scottish referendum in September, which may in effect end the ‘United Kingdom.’ Sad I know, but it shows that there is a distinction to be made between being British and being English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. There’s no reason why you can’t enjoy being British AND English, for example, and I would like the England article to reflect this. I would like the Royal Banner restored for cultural reasons, which you will agree is also very important.

Daicaregos; you keep repeating yourself, and missing the point that I am trying to make. Your claim that the English Coat of Arms is not specific to England? This is false, take a look here to see just how many there are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_england and try not to get confused between the Monarchy’s crest and Englands Crest. Up until 1707 - the two are the same thing. It doesn’t just represent the monarch, it represents England AND its monarch. You say it is not specifically an English Coat of Arms. Like I said to Rob, please attend an English football match, or go to one of the Royal ceremonies I mentioned. Ask any Englishman, young or old, and they will all associate with the same thing: the three lions. This is more than definitive. If we are going to argue about definition why don’t we remove the Welsh Flag and motto, I’m sure they aren’t the first to use a dragon – so therefore by your reasoning it must be removed? The legal system in England and Wales was the legal continuation of the Kingdom of England, and has a separate coat of arms from Scotland. Likewise the monarchy has different coat of arms in England and Scotland. I was using this as an example, there’s no need to get so quite so upset.

In summary I really don’t get what the big deal is. It is quite clear to anyone living in England that the three lions is a distinctive representation of England. Daicaregos is in plain denial of this, which is ironic. And Rob984 claims that the existence of the British Empire for a few hundred years therefore means that it cannot enjoy its own distinct history? Like I said England enjoyed around 773 years as the Kingdom of England before its inclusion into the United Kingdom under the treaty of union, and it continues to exist to this day as a separate legal system in England and Wales (a fact lost on Daicaregos) distinct from Scotland. In all 773 of those years of history England enjoyed 37 different English monarchs who were all part of a Monarch-Parliamentary system that you are claiming had no emblem or flag? This is not true, and as I was explaining the English Royal Banner can be observed in the current Royal Standard – in which England is represented BY the three lions as an individual constituent country. England is not a borough or county of the UK. It is not a province like Northern Ireland, nor a principality like Wales. It is a Kingdom which forms one half of the ‘United Kingdom’ and I feel that the page should reflect this. - H - H (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Provide a source of contemporary, non-defaced usage of the Royal Standard solely (not on another banner), then its inclusion may be considered here. A source for the motto also. Your view that the UK is a union of kingdoms is not supported by most sources. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were merged into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain, in the words of the acts themselves.

Not that it's really relevant, but I don't see myself as English as, while living in the very north of England I realised that really, the people here share more in common with the Scots then they do with the English living in the south. The UK is economically, politically and culturally split between the North, and the South, not between 4 countries.

Rob (talk | contribs) 18:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I must ask you divert your attention to the top of the page. You seem quite convinced that England is part of a country, rather than a country itself. For this I must ask you to refer to the paragraph highlighted in orange above, in particular I quote:

' The issue whether England is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The outcome of discussion is that England is a country.'

And again at the beginning of the article itself:

'England (Listeni/ˈɪŋɡlənd/) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.'

So on this basis I refer to what I said before; that the quadrant given to England on the current standard as part of the United Kingdom which displays the three lions is sufficient evidence that the three lions represents England at national and international level. - H - H (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the consensus is that England is a country. I was just giving you my personal opinion, since you stated 'There’s no reason why you can’t enjoy being British AND English', which I strongly disagree with. This however has nothing to do with this discussion.

Regardless of what either of us think, you need to provide sources for the motto and Royal Standard, per WP:RS, as I have specified.

Rob (talk | contribs) 18:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on any of the views expressed and as an observer only, much of today's discussion strays well into general forum territory, so please can we make sure any continuation focuses on the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem though - looking through the records you seem to have removed the banner yourself on nothing more than personal opinion, where it is quite clear that aside from representing England on the current standard it remains heavily used in sporting and ceremonial events and therefore relevant. I have contacted the college of arms to see if I can get some closure on any other uses of the flag, however reverting back to my original point the flag is cultural just like many other aspects of England. However just because it is not de jure doesn't mean it should be excluded as it forms an important part of the English identity (very similiar to the flag of St George, not even used on government buildings, yet very important and relevant). I keep repeating myself on this point. _ H - H (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a source to remove unsourced material. I will repeat, please provide contemporary usage of the motto and Royal Standard (solely and not defaced). This isn't my POV, this is Wikipedia policy. You should also consider looking at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you completely ignore Wikipedia policy, editors are inclined to simply ignore you. Although I'm aware you haven't already done so, I'd like to inform you that performing edits contrary to Wikipedia policy constitutes as disruptive editing. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing I have said can possibly be considered a personal attack. This is a debate in which I am criticising certain edits that have taken place. It was you in the first place that suggested I use this page to propose making the change. - H - H (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't expect an editor to be reasonable with you after making some pretty exaggerated assertions, and recommending them to be banned. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, you have my apologies for that. However this is not going to get resolved when you believe in official representation and I believe in cultural usage as sufficient representation - H - H (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require 'official representation', it requires a reliable source supporting your claim that the Royal Banner (not part of another symbol, and not defaced) is used to represent England. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright here are just a few of the sources I found just now in two minutes of browsing -

Sporting sources: http://www.thefa.com/england/News/2010/FAQ_ThreeLions_Badge http://www.ecb.co.uk/twelfthman/interactive/q-and-a/491,491,QA.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-world-cup-group-three-2897859

Current Wikipedia sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Arms_of_England

A design article: http://www.downwithdesign.com/logo-design/three-lions-the-history-of-an-emblem/

Hopefully these meet the criteria for sources, there are countless more - H - H (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I'll repeat. You need to provide a contemporary source supporting your view that the Royal Standard, not part of another symbol, and not defaced, is used to represent England. I'm aware that the three lions represent England, but you have not provided a source that supports the view that the actually Royal Standard of the now not existent English monarchy is still used to represent England. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As you yourself pointed out when the Kingdom of England became part of the United Kingdom these symbols, flags etc became absorbed into a new crest and flag for the United Kingdom. It probably isn't possible to locate some source where it is used to represent the current monarchy - who is a monarch of the UK, or England as a whole because it is now part of the UK. It's use is cultural, that is why I am suggesting that we revert back to the banner or arms used before 1707. - H - H (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The infobox provides information on contemporary England, not pre-1707 England, which does have it's own article at Kingdom of England. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

True, but surely we should be aiming to represent England's history as well. England is the same country it was in 1707, the same borders, the same parliament etc, it's not a different country. If we cannot agree on the royal banner do you have any other suggestions regarding heraldic badges or flags for England, of which there are many? Perhaps the coat of arms of England prior to 1707 which included the fluer de lis? Used from 1399 up until the treaty of Union. - H 90.206.144.219 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The infobox provides information on contemporary England. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because it is contemporary does not mean it should not be allowed to enjoy it's heritage.....like virtually every other country on Wikipedia - H 90.206.144.219 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not getting it. You don't dictate what should be used to represent contemporary England. You need to provide a reliable source that supports your view that the Royal Standard of the now not existent English monarchy, not part of another symbol and not defaced, is still used to represent England. Wikipedia policy is very clear that contended material must be entirely supported by a reliable source. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazing...You are the only one here dictating, the Royal Banner was present on the England article for years before you removed it without consulting anyone. There's no need to keep repeating yourself as I know what you mean, however if we apply your kind of thinking to the article why have an England flag at all? That's not contemporary...it's not used at government level, but it still exists as an important symbol of England. You completely fail to understand this, and you have not been clear at all in your definition of sources, or what constitutes a 'defaced' symbol. Anyway I have requested a dispute resolution, and I have nothing more to discuss as you as clearly you aren't willing to consider anyone's opinion but your own and this conversation will continue to go in circles. - H - H (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You wont gain anything out of a dispute resolution, except for wasting more people's time. In response to your statement on the English flag, the flag often used to represent England today. Notably on Tower Bridge for example. Defaced refers to the Royal Standard being adapted in any way, as many of the examples you provided are. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Rob984 the flag on Tower Bridge is infact the City of London flag here: Another example please, otherwise I believe you should remove the England flag in line with HWallis1993 request.Theno2003 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To add the Three lions are in use today, which derived from the original royal arms. England National Football team emblem, England Cricket Team emblem, an entire mint of one pound coins features the three lions, representing England. I am sorry, but it is clearly a sign of England in modern day use. I suggest the Royal Arms are displayed next to the England flag instead of the Royal standard. Clearly as this is in contemporary use as an emblem of England. Theno2003 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Theno, thanks very much for your message! and it really means a lot for a fellow Englishman to come forward and fight for his heritage. Unfortunately you are quite right. Rob is the callous, uninformed type to totally disregard others and as you might be able to observe above, where my attempts to reason fell on deaf ears. I highly suspect he is French. Nonetheless I took my argument to the dispute resolution notice board because I believed as you do that the arms of England remained a strong symbol for us and therefore representative of our nation, as it had done for quite a while before Rob removed it without consultation. Unfortunately the powers that be decided that I was wrong, contradicting the very statement at the top of the page outlining England as a country with a proud heritage, and not as some boring constituent subdivision of the UK. Therefore I would ask you to please not waste your valuable time as I did trying to convince this jobsworth and the rest of the clowns on here of the obvious. You can still enjoy your heritage my friend, be English and Proud! I'm afraid this lot are rather a lost cause ;) - H ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWallis1993 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 May 2014‎

The dispute resolution noticeboard is only to help resolve disputes, it doesn't dictate the outcome.

I'm actually English. I've lived in France and my girlfriend's French, but I'm definitely not French. There's a significant proportion of English people who simply don't consider the English a nation. If you look into Great Britain's history, you will quickly realise that there aren't 3 distinct nations with clear borders. It's simply bullshit. I fail to see how I differ from a Scot, 100 km north, more then an English person, 300 km south. Ethnically? Nope. Culturally? Nope.

Theno, please read the past discussion. Do you have any evidence of contemporary usage of the actual 1369 Royal Arms of England? Not just the three lions, which I'm well aware is used represent contemporary England. The England National Football team emblem is not the 1369 Royal Arms of England, it is derived from it, but it is not it. You're free to remove the Saint George Cross per WP:NOR. I don't actually care if it is here, but I'm sure another editor will provide a source, as there are hundreds of examples of its usage; for example at the English–Scottish border.

Rob (talk | contribs) 09:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, clearly you are not English as you have stated previously you don't consider yourself English? But I do consider myself English and the fact some people don't consider it a nation I and many others do consider it a nation. But it would appear your opinion is in fact the law? Well no it's not bullshit there are massive differences in our culture and ethnic backgrounds. I guess My right Honorable friend Mr HWallis is right. I can be proud without some wikipedia page and shall be. God Save England. Theno2003 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I see myself as English. I also see myself as European. I do not see either of those as my nationality, which is British. Is that a difficult concept? When the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain, they did not slaughter every Celtic being in the region we now call 'England'. In England, about 64 per cent of people are descended from Celts, while in Scotland, this is only slightly higher at 73 per cent. Additionally, northern English culture is very much a transition towards Scottish culture, and much of Scotland's culture originates from the English kingdom of Northumbria. Like I said, there's really no clear border between what you call 'nations'.

I have nothing against adding symbols which represent contemporary England, provided they are supported by reliable sources. It's not my wrong doing that your wishes don't adhere to WP:NOR.

Rob (talk | contribs) 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"There's a significant proportion of English people who simply don't consider the English a nation".....O_o Unbelievable. I'd like to meet this significant proportion, they probably call themselves Rob! Theno old chap I think Rob's attitude to the English can be summed up in this one sentence. It is nonsensical, irrelevant and not representative of a country where a strong national identity has been expressed for many centuries. From the football terraces to the battlefields. Whilst I feel strongly about this, I would hate for you to spend many words, as I did, trying to convince Rob the Blob that his fantasies are tragically wide of the mark. He is not worth the effort, and whilst this leaves us with a Wikipedia article that is plain and boring (which England is not) people like Rob will never be able to take away our English heritage. People like Mr Europe can undermine it all they like, but they will not succeed in erasing our amazing and splendid history. God Save England. - H — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWallis1993 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My dear Sir, a wonderful response! God bless England. 149.254.51.59 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Glastonbury Tor

Does "Glastonbury" in the last paragraph under "Prehistory" refer to the town Glastonbury or to Glastonbury Tor? Thanks. Risssa (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Glastonbury Abbey, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion

The last paragraph in the Religion section implicitly claims that Islam is an Eastern religion. Islam is an Abrahamic religion, not an Eastern one. If religions from the Middle East are to be considered Eastern religions, than Judaism and Christianity would also have to be considered Eastern religions and no major world religion would not be an Eastern one. See the Wikipedia page for Eastern religions, which I have never edited, or any other source for confirmation. I would like to make this uncontroversial edit, but the page is not open to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.20.176 (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I've now tweaked the wording and removed "Eastern". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for making the fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.20.176 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing establishment

The date of establishment is missing. Please tag this with Category:Year of establishment missing. Thanks. This is not my last name (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Or, we could include a date. When would it be? 927? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The land of the English has existed since the 5th century. The unified kingdom wasn't 'established' in 927 either. Generally, the 10th century is agreed as the period in which the unified kingdom was formed, but in reality, this was simply when the West Saxon kingdom (formed in the 6th century) gained control over all of the English. When Wessex and client states became one kingdom is nor any clearer; and it's questionable as to whether that distinction can even be made. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

2.25.237.210 (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 Hi. Your headline indicates that the battle of Brunanburgh took place in 929 ad.
        Was it not 939 ad?
        Please can you check?

Not done: There is no mention on this article about a Battle of Brunanburgh, or the mention of the date 929. Did you perhaps mean Battle of Brunanburh? Cannolis (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Royal Standard and Governance

I have read below an argument on the placing of the Royal standard back on to the England page. I note that the Scotland place has it in place, yet I would imagine should be removed as it is technically redundant, but perhaps in more use due to the nationalism that exists in Scotland today. England its self is only just emerging as English so I would imagine its flags and heritage will come into contemporary life in England. The fact that one user Rob984 seems to have taken control of this entire article for England seems rather unjust and undemocratic. Will it be possible that the issue of the Royal Standard can solved with a vote or more democratic approach, rather than one persons view of wikipedia policy.

To add the Government section in the infobox seems to have also been removed by this user. Why has this user been able to edit with an iron fist in this manner? Theno2003 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on Royal Standard is here: #Flag, Motto, Anthem.

England has no government, why would we have a government section in the infobox for a region with no government?

Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement. There's nothing undemocratic about my edits.

Rob (talk | contribs) 09:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)