Talk:England and Wales

Law societies

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

• (Law society of England and Wales)
• (Law Comission for England and Wales) (The Commission's offices are in London)
• (The Bar council) offices in - London

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

Cricket team

"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. 81.158.205.33 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: http://www.ecb.co.uk/fans/q-and-a/185,185,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. 193.130.85.60 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 http://www.welshcricket.org/constitution.htm --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 86.143.189.13 (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

What is the UK?

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?

195.93.21.71 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 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? 90.193.39.149 (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)

Respectfully, since the UK was originally created by the political union of Scotland and England, later to include Ireland, if Scotland does indeed leave, there will be no UK. And the world will be a safer place for that!

Possibility of separate laws?

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

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 86.142.125.87 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

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 (talk • contribs) 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 86.142.101.33 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Football

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 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal of content

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 86.142.125.87 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 18 September 2007

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

A very stupid argument

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 82.11.221.164 (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 94.195.191.50 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Romans - in England & Wales!

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

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

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!

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)