Talk:England/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page archives Talk from the England entry from 2001-January 2006. For current talk please see Talk:England


I removed the reference to an Act of Parliament in 1908 approving names for the Union Jack, as I don't believe there has ever been such an Act. If there was such an Act, then what was it called? --Zundark, 2001 Oct 17


Neither of these mentions an Act of Parliament. As far as I can tell, they refer to a parliamentary answer (see under "Use and status of the flag" in the second of your links). --Zundark, 2001 Oct 17

Hey i havn't edited this page but guys some body needs to add some thhing about the kings and queens-- 20:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

More flag

Can someone explain why the bit at the top about the English flag links to a page about the United Kingdom flag? Shouldn't that be a "See also" at the bottom? And the external link goes to a page which again describes the Union flag, which is confusing for a page which is supposed to be about England. Just curious... cferrero 10:12 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the red rose is the England national flower  ?

I believe that goes back to the War of the Roses & the Tudors... The Tudor Rose encompassed the roses of both sides (Lancaster & York) who'd been fighting over the throne. One side had a red rose and I think that was the side from which Henry VII came, the first of the Tudor line... - JVG 09:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


I went to the Westminster Parliament yesterday. Among other things, I was looking for the coat-of-arms with the (Three) Lions of England. The building is replete with such, some even brilliantly coloured, but alas, the visitors were not allowed to photograph inside the building except in the St Stephen's Chapel, where I took a photograph of a plain (not coloured) English coat-of-arms -- I will upload this soon. I think Wikipedia would appreciate anyone providing a coloured example. (See Lion of England 2003.jpg) --Kaihsu 10:03, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As promised: File:England smallCOA Copyright 20030922 Kaihsu Tai.jpg --Kaihsu 12:53, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


[I believe the three lions emblem to be foreign not English! I believe it's Norman not English! England started way before the Normans ever existed. The Normans were not French either which seems to be a common misconception thanks to a lack of true English history IN TURN THANKS TO britain's socialist type governments.user: M. Anderson 2:02 July 26 2004]

Well, but heraldry hadn't really developed yet before the Norman conquest -- the "coats of arms" sometimes assigned to Edward the Confessor, Alfred the Great, and so forth are retrospective mediaeval inventions. The three lions passant, likewise, were developed well after the Norman conquest. So they're English enough. Doops 21:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
a lack of true English history IN TURN THANKS TO britain's socialist type governments Eh? If it comes to forgetting about the true English, anyone who knows the tales of Robin Hood also knows that the Tories are all Normans, so don't go blaming the socialists now... ;) -- Picapica 10:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually the three lions are english, and not norman. The coat of arms of normandy have TWO LIONS in it and thats probably why we have three.

The first of those pictures clearly show the arms of the UK in any case, only the first and fourth quarters of the shield represent England. Esquimo 23:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Culture of England

Is there really no Culture of England? Surely there must an Englishman (Englishperson?) with some sense of what has been going on all these years. :) fvincent 17:30, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

I am not English, but there appear to be a number of different cultures, all happy to ridicule the others. ( 17:34, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am English, but I don't get the question, and I am only 10 so I probably won't be able to answer it, but explain it a bit more anyway.

There is a culture of England. The culture of England includes everyone from indians to Eskimos, everyone respects everyone elses culture, we all drink tea and Indians own the corner shops like Apu on the Simpsons, and i like to think that most of us are patriotic and love the Royal family. But the best way to find the culture of England is to come here and see things for yourself, you wont be disappointed.---Tony Jones---Romford---Greater London--- (Essex)

Anti-English Bias Yet Again

Could anyone explain to me the purpose of placing a racist French insult so high on the England page and peppering the information which follows it with the negative anti-English and, usually incorrect, opinions of the neighbouring celtic nations? I have checked the pages for France, Ireland and Scotland and there is no abusive comment posted about those countries and the data is not composed in the same negative or critical tone. Yet again we see England being used as the world's whipping boy and it is unfair and silly. Do you want your online encyclopedia to be taken seriously?

If what you're referring to is this paragraph:

  • The Marquis de Ximenés, an 18th century diplomat, is credited with coining the phrase La perfide Albion, or "perfidious Albion", which is still heard from the French -- also an affectionate term, in its own way. It is also used by the Irish about the English but in a less affectionate manner, suggesting a degree of untrustworthiness. The Irish also refer to England as "pagan England".

["Pagan England"? I have never heard anyone Irish say this. I think this is your OWN opinion! If you want to talk about pre-christianity go ahead as the "Irish" were also pagans. Well, what are the Irish anyway come to think of it? They say they are 'celtic' but where does the name Fitzherbert come from? Who founded Dublin? Maybe you can try to] User: M. Anderson 1:38 july 26 2004

then I'd like to say I agree. This has no real place in an article on England. And I'm Irish. Bmills 17:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The problem throughout this page is the effect of culturally approved anti-Englishness allied to a somewhat frightening (but scarcely surprising these days) historical ignorance, although I applaud an Irishman having the decency (and good judgement) to at least question the lazy assumptions about a 'celtic' past in these islands. A lot of the questions I've seen are rhetorical. Some are downright tendentious. Many, on the other hand, seem to be the product of genuine curiosity, understandable in view of the state's determination to keep England's history from the decendants of those who made it. Why this should be isn't hard to fathom.

We have to take account of the current political climate if we are to get to grips with England's present malaise. To begin with we have to remember that pride in being Irish, Scottish or Welsh is officially approved, and is even generously funded by the English taxpayer (excluding Eire). Bear in mind as well the state's deep-seated fear of English nationalism, such that while Scottish nationalists are lauded as part of the political mainstream, English nationalists find themselves demonized as 'Nazis' (Glenda Jackson). The intention of the anti-English political elite (and a preponderance of Scottish politicians has to be relevant here) could not be clearer: it is to strip us of our culture and to re-write our history, to remove anything and everything which makes us proud to be who we are, lest we stand in the way of the internationalist juggernaut.

We are familiar with 'post-modern' attitudes, with the widely encouraged tendency to question the very nature of the nation state (undermining accepted patterns of identity and thus softening us up for eventual World Government). What should be noted here, however, is such questions are NEVER directed at the validity if an Irish or Scots nation. Antagonism - thinly-concealed self-loathing in most cases - is always directed at England. Well - have YOU ever seen a television documentary which challenges the identity of a nation other than England's? This fact alone is quite enough for us to dismiss the question. Forget all the pious talk about questioning received wisdom. This isn't some valid epistemological enquiry. It is an attack. It is designed to undermine us. Attacks are not mounted on our neighbours. That is because our neighbours enjoy lofty positions in the pantheon of victims, a card they play repeatedly and deftly, with causation laid at England's door. This will pass. It is a fashion. And in case you think only old England's bones need picking over what about all those nice middle-class boys from Edinburgh, who speak without a trace of a Scottish accent, and who could so easily be mistaken for our own were they not kind enough to distinguish themselves by wearing the kilt, sporran and other paraphernalia the English invented for them?

To anyone English, sick to the back teeth of the insults and lies thrown at us, I say this: we have nothing and no-one to fear. Our history is there to be discovered. It is a wonderful story. It is a story of achievement. Who has need of some mythical past when the real thing is this good?

Finally a word to other contributors: to the best of my recollection the three lions are the symbol of the Angevin monarchs, and as such are not English. As to the assertion that we are not a nation because of our status as 'British', it is important to remember that the state (authority and bureaucracy) is NOT the nation (the people), though politicians try very hard to make us to believe otherwise.

'Britishness' has done more to damage England's sense of itself than anything else in my opinion, which is unsurprising since the historical record shows us as an independent nation to have been every bit as insular and as nationalistic as Scots or Irish are said to be today. Read the journals of visiting foreign dignitaries of the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Your ancestors might surprise you. Oh yes - whatever was said against us by the French contributor, it was not 'racist', a much overused word that should be reserved for genetics classes. The French and the English are of the same racial stock in the main. Sorry to go on at some length but this (and much else besides) needed saying [Brain Biter, 19.11.2005]

Can you cite any specific passages in the article which are unfair in your view and need cleaning up? So long as you're specific and to-the-point, I'm sure your critiques will be taken seriously. (Please post at the bottom of the page, since that's where live discussions take place — up here things are mostly fossilized.) Doops | talk 07:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

What prompted me to write were your own references to 'celtic' Britain, which got me asking why it is we accept history so uncritically so long as it is someone else's; that, the logic chopping - 'London Not the Capital of England?' - and the general hand-wringing and tone of defeatism surrounding the whole subject. Why do we do this? Nations romanticize their past. That is how they survive. All adhere to certain self-serving beliefs about themselves. It is part of the glue which holds them together. For example there never were any 'celts' in Britain, yet everyone just blithely accepts this fiction because enough people say it on the BBC. Without an invented history Ireland, Scotland and Wales would be left to contemplate sixteen centuriese living on grass and doing nothing in particular of merit while England got on with the job of building a civilization. That is WHY they needed it - to fill an acknowledged (look to the eighteenth century records) emotional void. It also serves another important function, since this assumed 'celtic' identity establishes a prior moral claim to these islands by virtue of a longer past. Culture wars are fierce affairs. Unfortunately the English don't seem to realize they are even engaged in one.

There were no 'Ancient Irish Tribes'. There were no Scottish ones either. The Irish we know today arrived around the 3rd century A.D (roughly when the first few English settlers arrived next door). Having laid seige to the main tribe in the north-east of the island - the Uliti (sic), who gave their name to 'Ulster' - their greed and ferocity quickly earned them the knickname 'Gaels', meaning 'robber' or 'bandit'. Repeated piratical raids on the English coastline in the centuries that followed, not to mention teaming up with Vikings and Scots to see what they could plunder from our new-won homelands, suggests the name was well earned (one reason I smile when I'm told what beasts we English are).

Talk of a 'celtic boundary' is meaningless. I realize this might hurt. Actually two academics of my acquaintance were threatened with bodily harm for reaching just this conculsion and publishing the findings. More astonishing still, these threats came from academic colleagues! Now you see what is at stake. People get agitated when asked to accept they don't exist. Fortunately English history and the facts occupy much the same space, so that if anyone would like to invent a story for children about their fierce warrior ancestors, with a name taken from the knife they used in war to finish off opponents (Seaxe), and whose Germanic lands were all but emptied by emigration to these shores, and whose genetic markers spread the length and breadth (approximately 96%) of England (note that in similar Irish or Scottish heroic tales it is routine to ignore the input of other cultures, other invasions, and quite unthinkable to concede the possibility of an interbred [by implication diluted) population], then I can only applaud your initiative. Future generations of children will thank you for the chance to learn where they came from, and will take pride in the knowledge that, unlike their neighbours, what they are learning is actually true. [Brain Biter 19/11/2005]

Encyclopedia Britannica - NOT!

Comment on the author's words in the England Entry.

It is not acceptable to leave the encyclopedic entry as stating all Britons who reside in the geographic borders of England are English. The English are by virtue of a long history a group of bloodlines and with the evolvement of the language defineably a race. Anthropologies and key historical turning points are well documented.

That race which is still a pure majority outside the country's major cities is English. Those who have settled from countries outside Europe since 1707 under the British Unionist contract are culturally British or Britons. They are racially different to the English and moreso culturally. The english who are a race and who have the majority have the rightful claim to being a nation. Just like the Scot, the Welsh and the Irish living in the Northern Irish Territory.

British ideas have taken hold over a long history of State rule and are at the forefront because the nation state of England has not held power in it own country since 1707.

The commentator above, "anti-english bias", makes reference to a real cultural and social problem facing the indigenous race in the face of Institutionalised British 'liberalism' in preaching national culture and the patronage of foreign authors imposing artificial visions of national identity. For many this is seen as a real crisis and is a driving force for disenfranchisement and alienation. Exploited by secure communities of migrants who have long established unique opportunities for their own race in commerce. British society is fragmented and unifying dictats like multiculturalism and equal opportunities have failed to hide the rift between society and British rule despite the PR work of institutions like the BBC with highly visible ethnic and mixed race presenters and with what the British set as an agenda in state run schools regarding notions of community and the focus of history taught. The absence of unique English national identity taught or represented is a clear ideological implementation of British Institutional cultural policy.

The matter to which I refer is semantics. The truth is the English are a race and therefore a nation and the accession to a parliament would invalidate the patronising cultural monolith created by the British ideology. Hence there is palpable resistance by the British to allow devolution of the UK to fully take place.

The most notable being the claimed sabotage of the Northern Ireland Assembly to thwart the natural devolution of the UK.

Despite British 'misrule' and 'brainwashing' of the English and despite prior complacency many have woken up to this paradigm shift and what politically the British Union 1707 is unable to sustain given devolution of the United Kingdom has progressed to the reforming of its nation states Scotland and Wales by parliamentary independence.

Author: A.Hine {Campaigning for an English Parliament} 10/01/06

Perfidious England

I have removed the gratuitous and racist insult because no-one has given me an explanation as to what useful purpose it served. Remarks such as that can only serve to heighten racial tension not ease it.

Well, there may be some small purpose to leaving the remarks in. I actually came upon this talk page specifically looking for the origins of the term "Perfidious Albion" which I've heard in quite a number of places. I appreciate the desire to remove hateful sentiments, but at the same time, please be wary of erasing history when doing so. I'd like to still be able to go to wikipedia and find out the background of this (in)famous phrase. If the explanation has to be couched in disclaimers, then so be it. [21:30, 20 Feb 2004]

England's legal identity

"England's formal legal identity is that of the kingdom of England and Wales." Really? There has never been a Kingdom of England and Wales, and I have never seen this term used. "England and Wales" has some reality as an administrative, legal and statistical unit of the UK, though much less than it used to now that Wales has its own legislature. But it is absurd to say that "England's formal legal identity" (assuming there is such a thing) includes Wales. Unless someone can justify this sentence it shoule be deleted. Adam 13:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that historically there were three kingdoms, England, Scotland and Ireland and the Principality of Wales. With the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland, the kingdom of Great Britain, incorporating Wales, began to emerge. This kingdom was a fully fledged fact by the time of the 1800 act which brought about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, more recently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There was never an official kingdom of Wales or of England and Wales.
England, as I understand it, has only a negative official identity: the bit of Britain not covered by the regional assemblies of Scotland and Wales would just about sum it up. Bmills 14:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's straightforward enough. Wales's identity as a separate legal domain was extinguished by its annexation in the Middle Ages, leading to the creation of a single legal entity called "England and Wales" in which a set of common laws applies. Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate legal entities. You'll notice, in virtually anything to do with legal matters, that a distinction is made between "England and Wales", "Scotland" and "Northern Ireland". See the University of Leeds's summary at . -- ChrisO 14:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

None of that answers my point that the "Kingdom of England and Wales" never existed and certainly doesn't now, and that therefore the sentence is wrong. Now that Wales has its own legislature I'd be surprised if the expression "England and Wales" any longer has much meaning or currency. Adam 14:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. But the article is better now without the "kingdom". Clearly the new assembly has changed the "weight" of "England and Wales". Bmills 14:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Adam has a fair point regarding the misleading use of the word "kingdom" - hopefully my clarifications of the article have cleared up this point. But the expression "England and Wales" definitely does still have a lot of validity. Devolution has simply given the Welsh Assembly powers to pass secondary legislation affecting the counties of Wales. It hasn't established a separate legal domain for Wales and the two countries continue to share a single legal system governed from Westminster, which retains the exclusive right to pass primary legislation affecting Wales. See for an explanation of the devolution settlement. -- ChrisO 14:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Kingdom was always merely England. Wales was ignored as a separate entity. In the 1960s when the Wales and Berwick Act was repealed that references to "England" were not to be taken to include "Wales". Pre Welsh Assembly most primary & secondary legislation affected England and Wales so the term grew in use, but there was no change in the subservience of Wales to England, whether that was justified or not garryq 18:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's true. Wales was legally and nominally part of England. Deb 18:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some school histories...

I'm English and certainly in England we don't start our histories at 1066 although it's the one year everyone knows in this country. I consider the statement "This may be because the English are proud of their long history of independence, and therefore like to start the clock after the last successful invasion." to be nothing more than another Mel Gibson inspired (see 'The Patriot' & 'Braveheart') dig at the English. It certainly adds absolutely nothing positive to an article about England. It may be that in other countries they start English history at 1066 but everyone in England is taught to be proud of both King Alfred (pre 1066) and the fact that William the Conqueror was the last person to successfully invade. We're certainly too proud of our long history to shorten it by 200 years! These are the reasons that I am deleting this line. I don't agree with the first line ("Some school histories of England...") either. This certainly is not true in England but I can't speak for other countries. That's why I'm not deleting that line. This is the first time I've posted anything on this excellent website so please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong. I'm eager to learn. I've read the NPOV description and I think this comes under that heading. STAN

Agree with you about the line in question. There is a sense in which the statement is true, but it is not the sense in which most people would read it, which I think justifes its removal.

History, technically speaking, is not "what happened" but rather "the record of what happened". The Normans were excellent documenters, and from 1066 onwards we have huge quantities of factual data about life in England upon which to base our analysis. Records of pre-conquest England, on the other hand, are extremely patchy at best. Much of what we are taught about Alfred, for example, seems to have been first documented long after his death, and very little about him can be established with certainty. Many (although not all) historians have believed that their job is to establish facts through the interpretation of historical documents, and they have no mandate to speculate about events that were not documented.

Turning now to the other sense of "history", there was a time when English public (ie. posh private) schools did teach history starting with the conqueror. This was mainly because they were run by and for the aristocracy, who claimed mostly Norman descent and didn't consider what had come before their arrival to be part of their own history. But you are quite correct that it is a long time since English schoolchildren have been taught that nothing happened before 1066, and very few English people today labour under this illusion!

Another reason to remove the line in question is that, despite what is still taught in English schools, the last successful invasion was not in 1066. There seems to be no doubt that William of Orange invaded 1688, but he used the old usurper's trick of pretending it had never happened and that he had acquired the throne by peaceful means.....

BTW, your approach to editing (to think carefully, consider points of view, edit confidently and explain why) is impeccable, and if you carry on like this you'll be a highly valued contributor. Welcome to Wikipedia! Cambyses 16:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RE: William of Orange, he was invited over be the English parliament, so technically didn't invade. Also James fled wiothout a fight. Grunners 04:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Many invading forces in history have had the support of certain factions within the political system of the invaded country, but it doesn't negate the fact of the invasion. Parliament wasn't (and still isn't, for that matter) legally the sovereign body, and it had no legal authority to depose the monarch or choose a new one. The fact that James fled doesn't make it any less of an invasion, either. The Polish president fled the 1939 German invasion, but very few people deny that it was an invasion..... Best wishes, Cambyses 01:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Independent Nation?

"It is of interest to note that England is far from being an independent nation since it has no national government, has no currency of its own, has no armed forces, etc". Surely this is a confusing sentence to include. All the things mentioned represent Great Britain and seeing as England is part of Great Britain they must represent England too. True enough they are shared with the other British nations but to say England is far from independent is misleading as it is not ruled by any other country.

The thought also occurs that the sentence quoted above is equally applicable to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (except for the bit about national governments, although their power is limited) but if we were to say 'Scotland is far from being an independent nation' for the above reasons it would be deleted instantaniously and rightly so. Surely therefore it shouldn't be included on the England page? User:Pazzer 31 May 2004

Agree that deleting it is a good idea, since it confuses two distinct concepts - those of being a nation and of being independent. According to the definition in the nation article (which I think is reasonable, and which we should in any case try to be consistent with), being a nation is nothing to do with independence. Rather "a nation is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity". By this definition, England and Wales would seem to be nations. (Scotland and NI, for different reasons, could perhaps be described as two nations each, but that is another story!). I think it would, on the other hand, be both fair and accurate to make it clear that England is not an independent state, since it is governed as part of a larger state. Best wishes, Cambyses 00:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It is not a nation it is not recognized by any nation as seperate It is as silly as saying that Washington DC is a country pages like wales and other kingdoms should become part of the UK page DudtzFile:Kardos.jpg 7/20/05 6:46 Pm est .

England is a nation but not a sovereign one. It hasn't been a kingdom for 402 years but should not be merged ingto UK, SqueakBox 23:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

yea I agree with you Squeak box It makes more sense saying it is not sovereign DudtzFile:Kardos.jpg 7/22/05 3:59 PM EST

Official Languages

Since there seems to be a certain amount of disagreement about 'Official Languages', it might be good to post a reference or explain why it is not 'Official Languages: English and Welsh', which is what most people would assume. At the very least, if there is some bizarre reason why there are no official languages then an entry 'de facto English and Welsh' should be added. DJ Clayworth 19:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why would anyone assume that the national languages of England are English and Welsh? As far as I know, there are no official figures on the number of Welsh speakers in England (the Welsh language question wasn't asked outside Wales), but you hardly run into Welsh speakers everywhere you go in England.
As far as I'm aware, the closest thing that comes to an establishment of Welsh as an official language is the Welsh Language Act 1993 [1]. This doesn't actually prescribe an official language; it only says that the two languages must be treated equally. Even if it did prescribe an official language, it only applies to Wales, and not England. Marnanel 19:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree with all that Marnanel, there is little scope for disagreement and the anon adding welsh to the article is plainly wrong. As for "bizarre", it's not really not so bizarre - England is just that old.
Finally about listing "de facto" languages... rest assured that welsh would come a looong way down the list of languages spoken in England ordered by number of speakers! Pcb21| Pete 15:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Welsh Language Act requires public bodies to treat Welsh or English equally when providing services in Wales. Whether or not this makes any language official is irrelevant to this article. Asda and Cornwall County Council are promoting the use of Cornish but this does not make them official, even if my POV does want it to be so. No act of parliament has prescribed an offical language; but if it did it then it will need the Queen, whose title was officially proclaimed in Latin, to give her assent, which is given in Norman French. Anybody want to add these to the official language list ;) --garryq 21:08, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 19:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Re "Removed well known factual error which is also of course racist against the English." SOURCE: General knowledge of anyone born before 1960 and:

"VisitBritain funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was launched in July 1999 as a transformation of the existing English Tourist Board. VisitBritain is therefore a strategic body brokering partnerships,setting standards,developing policy, providing research and forecasts and championing issues at the highest level.

VisitBritain's Press and PR department produces press releases for journalists."

ADDED WikiUser 19:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) - "Languages spoken in Britain There are two official languages in Britain; English and Welsh. Although not an offical language, Scottish Gaelic is spoken in some parts of Scotland, as well as English. "

Okay, and what does that have to do with whether Welsh is an official language of England? Marnanel 19:42, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 19:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) - What you arguing for. I'm editing the page and tellin people why in the appropiate place like everyone else does. JUST WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE YOU THINK I'M JEWISH OR SOMETHIN? England doesn't have a SEPARATE official language because England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all one cunry. It called The U.K. -heard of it?

There is no national language of the UK, and no national language of England. The Welsh Language Act does give some status to Welsh (although whether it makes Welsh "official" is debatable), but that Act only applies within Wales. It has no force in England. Therefore I reverted your changes. (Incidentally, I find your comments about Judaism extremely offensive.) Marnanel 19:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser responded to this with a further off-topic rant filled with invective and personal abuse. I reverted this to remove it from the talk page. --Michael Snow 20:44, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 20:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) - You have no right under the wikipedia guidlelines to censor my views and prevent users discussing things here. "Only my friends can discuss the articles here" is not a part of the wikipedia guidelines. TO Marnanel: As I said before it was fascistly censored I find your antisemitic comment to me offensive and it is also illegal to post it on a UK carried web site under the Race Relations Act.

Since you deleted the suggestions that Michael and I made on your talk page, let me reproduce them here:
Regarding your edits to Talk:England - I removed your most recent statements there, as they had little relationship to the topic of the article, and were filled with needless invective and personal abuse. Please do not post material of this type on talk pages. If you continue to do so, I will have to ask someone to block you from editing. --Michael Snow 20:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For the record - so that nobody can say you weren't warned - I'd like to invite you to read Wikipedia: Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Civility. Repeated violations of these policies, especially regarding civility, are not well regarded in these parts. -- ChrisO 00:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As for your complaints (Race Relations Act indeed!), you are clearly either a loon or a troll. Nobody takes you seriously, nobody is going to let you add inaccurate claims to article pages and - if you had bothered to read it, which I'm sure you hadn't - Wikipedia:Civility gave other editors the right to delete the illiterate, hate-filled, spittle-flecked rant that you posted last night. You've had your warning now so I suggest that you either grow up and start making positive contributions, or go somewhere else. -- ChrisO 22:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 17:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) - With regard to the 11 lines of garbage above from the loons and trolls and childish liars Michael Snow and ChrisO it's great as further evidence of all I've been saying about their misuse of The Wikipedia. As usual I've recorded it along with all other "histories" as a record to use against the owners of The Wikipedia.

National Anthem

I seperated "National Anthem" into de facto and unofficial because not only would God Save the Queen thought of by most people as the national anthem but is the one used whenever national anthem is specified to be played - military regulations don't refer to "God Save the Queen" or "Royal Anthem" --garryq 18:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But the military is the military of the UK; there is no English military. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My point concerned the style given to the anthem when its playing is prescribed. --garryq 22:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should not we be talking of a state song rather the a national anthem, which is an attribute of a sovereign state? --garryq 22:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


"The red cross acted as a symbol for Crusaders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries AD and was subsequently used as a national flag until 1606 when it became a component of the Union Flag for Great Britain. At that time period, the Republic of Guinea used it also."

I don't think there was a Republic of Guinea in 1606, and the modern flag of Guinea does not have any cross. Am I missing something here? Gzornenplatz 23:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I cannot find a reference to Guinea at this time either, further the proclamation of 1606 onle defeined the flags to be worn by shipos at sea, --garryq 15:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I found it, it was the Republic of Genoa that had the same flag! Gzornenplatz 16:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Republic of Georgia also use it, slightly altered withj an extra four tidgy crosses. Also how come it is St.George's cross and not some other saint?[Jimmyjimpson]

National anthem

(18th June '04) I have removed the mention of "national anthem". I have been meaning to do this since I discovered Wikipedia many months ago, so I have not edited without thought. Please note this is a factual edit. England can have no national anthem as the countries of the U.K. are not nations. The nation is the U.K. and the national anthem is "God Save The Queen". This should be put on the U.K. page only. Also there can be no such thing as a recognised (or easily agreed on un-official anthem), so if people feel there are candidates for such a thing they should try putting this in a contribution to the main text. - WikiUser.

indeed. A good reference here is the Commonwealth Games where each of the 'home countries' (who compete separately) use a different anthem and none use GStQ. Don't recall what they do use though! --VampWillow 20:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, the England national football team certainly do use God Save the Queen, at least the last time I checked... Morwen - Talk 20:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Scottish certainly don't though! CHecking about the Commonwealth Games, btw, I find Land of Hope and Glory for England para 5, [2] & [3], Flower of Scotland for, uh, Scotland. Wales use "Hen wlad fy nhadau" (Land of my Fathers) and Northern Ireland "A Londonderry Air". --VampWillow 21:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have often found it strange that when England play a football or rugby match they use the UK national anthem. No wonder people in Wales and Scotland have a problem with this. What happens when England and Wales play each other at a rugby match? - Wales sings the Welsh national anthem and England sings the British national anthem (which technically includes Wales)- what a muddle! - no wonder people in Wales see the British national anthem as an English anthem. This has nothing do with whether you believe England or Britain are countries or independent etc etc. it is just a matter of having the correct anthem which fits the country. The anthem should fit the country being represented - If you are going to have an English football team they should sing an English anthem, A British team should use a British anthem etc.

Replaced "Anthems" (not "National Anthems")

England is not an independent state, but to claim that is not a nation is contrary to common sense. You are also denying the nationhood of the other peoples of the UK in doing this. This is very dodgy ground. By extension you are denying nationhood to Kurds, Palestinians, Tibetans (and a few years ago) to East Timorese, Latvians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians etc. A nation does not necessarily equate to a state, or vice versa. You need to understand that the UK is a mystical union: A Nation made up of Nations, and a Country made up of Countries. -- Simon Hedges

WikiUser 20:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) - You've got it completely the wrong way round. The U.K. is the real thing and the idea that England etc. are nations is the myth. But stop using the Wikipedia to call me racist. I'm not denying nationhood to anyone. If you don't like what I say get the British people and the government to change it.

Some people would argue that the UK was just an economic union between Scotland and England (similar to a union such as the European Union) that helped Scotland to participate in the activities of the Empire that England had developed, and that now the empire has gone there is no longer any use for it and people are reverting back to the old nations of England and Scotland (the inclusion of Wales can't really be called a union as they didn't really have much say in the matter, although it is debatable whether Scotland was forced into the union of 1707)-- 11:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The government seems to think that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries: [4]. That page also uses the adjective "national" to describe something applying only to England, strongly implying that they think they are nations as well. So, whatever you do, don't call upon the British government to support your silly claims. Proteus (Talk) 21:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 16:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Hey cut the godamn abuse ok. I'm not your slave. If you can't use the Wikipedia without abusing people then don't use it. Hey! funny proteus abuses the guidelines and yet no group multi attack from ChrisO and all the other clique that own the "England" page? Curious. Had your "talk" page filled with abuse by the above WikiPedia owners yet? No! Funny!! And what makes you think that I; "called upon the British government to support my facts"? It's Simon Hedges that's wanting things changed not me.

I certainly wasn't abusive, but if that's the way you conduct discussions I wouldn't be surprised if people are rude to you. Oh, and: what makes you think that I; "called upon the British government to support my facts"? "If you don't like what I say get the British people and the government to change it." Proteus (Talk) 16:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Notice of request for arbitration against abuse by chrisO.

WikiUser 20:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I want to note that chrisO keeps erasing all my hard work when I have followed all guidelines, in removing factual innacuracies and racist comments against my country. I am applying for arbitration from his abusive behaviour, breaking all Wikipedia guidelines as he is obviously just indulging in vandalism and abuse.

"The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view (for some guidelines, see Wikiquette). "

WikiUser 20:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Removed factual error by vandle chrisO.

"England does not have an official anthem of its own but Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory are both widely regarded - unofficially - as English national hymns (although the latter more properly refers to Great Britain, not just England). "

They are in fact as any schoolchild knows regarded nationally as songs asssociated with Britain and The British Empire.

Years ago, during the heyday of the British Empire, the word England was often used to mean not just England, but Britain and even the British Empire. (Which came out of the perceived superiority of the English nation over the rest of the British Isles and the Empire and a strong belief in English-style of government and culture which led to English culture and values being forced onto other countries (eg. suppressing the Welsh language) in the hope of making these countries more English). The legacy of this is still with us as many people still use the words 'England', 'Britain' and 'UK' interchangeably. --Cap 15:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Eh ? The last two lines of Jerusalem are "Till we have built Jerusalem, In England's green and pleasant land." - sound's like it's about England to me. Mintguy (T) 21:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
and Land of Hope and Glory is used as the English anthem at the Commonwealth Games (where the four British nations compete independently). Perhaps any schoolchild is ill-informed, and not a good source for compiling encyclopedia articles. - MykReeve 21:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
and WikiUser was evidently asleep during the England-Croatia match (and all other English football internationals), where "God Save The Queen" is played as the de facto national anthem of England. Also, why on earth is s/he objecting to the assertion that "Blighty" is a term for England? Might I suggest a look in the Oxford English Dictionary? -- ChrisO 21:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 20:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) - FULL version from my last edit note. (See England "history" page.):

" Restored to more factual version before vandalism and breach of guidelines by chrisO and others, and removed some factual errors and racist comment -- Jwrosenzweig, you're cutting material that is factual and you haven't discussed it in talk. You are lying. You know full well that I HAVE discussed it on "talk" and included detailed records on each change. You are also breaking the Wikipedia guidelines by subjecting me to personal abuse: "- don't try to sneak it past by claiming Chris is a "vandle" [sic]" "

I wish to inform Wikipedia users that the following people are breaking the Wikipedia guidelines; MykReeve, ChrisO and Jwrosenzweig.

Also that I have applied for arbitration on the "England" page- despite the abusive message posted by ChrisO saying I was lying about that - and also users should note that sensible discussion on this page is being prevented because the above named are abusing me if I try to discuss my changes to the page.

I see no abuse, just disagreement. I think these deletions and changes are too extreme to leave in place without more discussion. This needs to be worked out here before these changes are made IMO -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 20:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) - You haven't even bothered to read this page, with the relative material even though it's only a couple of inches above your "comment". The changes are minor and involve basic facts that all English people over 12 would be expected to know.

WikiUser, I reject the assertion that I was lying -- I don't see any discussion preceding your edits, just a note announcing them. You haven't given anything that resembles detailed evidence that I can see -- you continue to assert that "any child knows" what you are asserting, a fact in serious dispute by several editors who have marshaled some evidence in support. I am sorry you feel I personally abused you -- I had no intention of doing so. However, you referred to a good editor (ChrisO) who was and is acting in good faith as a "vandle" in an edit summary -- this remains in public display permanently, and cannot be erased. I was upset by this, and may have spoken more harshly than I should have, for which I apologize. I will, however, continue to insist that serious and solid evidence be offered here to justify the changes you are making. Appeals to common sense are not enough, particularly since others have provided evidence which contradicts your claims. I look forward to seeing your evidence, and promise to remain open-minded as to the question of whether or not you are right. I simply need to see more evidence. Jwrosenzweig 21:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser and others: Before we start going to formal arbitration, lets see if we can sort this out by simple discussion. WikiUser, you seem to have deleted some chunks of text because you think they are wrong. Please explain what is wrong with them here. Be precise. For whoever added the text, please explain why you think it is right.

Please think about the possibility that rather than just deleting text because it contains some errors, maybe it could be replaced with something slightly different. Please also come up with references to back up what you say ("It's obvious" isn't going to be helpful.) If you have examples of when these songs, or these terms, were used, say so here. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Royal Motto is "Dieu et mon droit", right? changed the motto section from:

Royal motto: Dieu et mon droit (God and my right)


Royal motto: Honi soit qui mal y pense (French: Shamed be he who thinks ill of it)

Now, as far as I can see, the latter is the motto of the Order of the Garter only, and the former is the motto of the monarch. As such, the former should be in the article, right? Am I wrong? —Gabbe 20:51, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think so, yes.
James F. (talk) 21:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling that "Dieu et mon droit" is the motto of the Princes of Wales. But I'm prepared to be proved wrong!

Don't know if this helps at all. Icundell 17:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The motto of the PoW is "Ich dien" ("I serve"). -- ChrisO 17:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Ich Dien" is also found on a tuppence. I don't know why. "Dieu et mon droit" is the soverign's motto and "Honi soit qui mal y pense" (Evil to Him Who Evil Thinks)is the motto of the Order of the Garter. Why a garter? --EF
Because the design of the 2p is the Prince of Wales' Feathers. -- Arwel 09:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


"the City of London is small but the city of London is a city not a town"

Pcb21 said:

the City of London is small but the city of London is a city not a town

Is that true? Does London (in the sense of the place that Livingston is the mayor of) actually have city status? Marnanel 20:28, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. ;-) --VampWillow 20:36, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In the sense of "a place with a Royal Charter making it a city", no, but it's certainly not a town (it contains many towns, and a couple of cities to boot). It's not a County, either (the County of London was, but that's been abolished). I'm not sure there really is a word to describe its official status. Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Its an 'administrative area'. It indeed doesn't have official city status, but that doesn't mean its not a city. However, if we were being pedantic, it doesn't have town status either, so say that is not really a city, but is just a large town, is pedantic and self-inconsistent. Morwen - Talk 11:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Of course, in terms of being 'self-inconsistent', the 'City' known worldwide as 'London' (ie.the conurbation) containing two 'Cities' ('of London' and 'of Westminster') is fully consistent with the country/nation 'United Kingdom' containing four countries/nations 'England', 'Scotland', 'Wales', (Northern) Ireland', so perfectly reasonable really for the UK! --VampWillow 15:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Does London (in the sense of the place that Livingston is the mayor of) actually have city status?

No. The honour of "City" belongs to the square mile. But the conurbation has been known informally as a city for decades. Parliament considered the 19th century's "Great Stink" a London problem even though they are based in Westminster, and London County was some years in the future. --garryq 22:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is listed as a city on List of cities in the United Kingdom. Rmhermen 19:04, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
That's the City of London, a small area ("the Square Mile") inside London. Proteus (Talk) 21:28, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let's not that other city around the corner, the City of Westminster.

All this is legally true, but it would be peverse to exclude greater London from a list of cities for this reason. Mark Richards 18:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Greater London is an administrative district, containing within it's boundaries the Cities of London (the square mile) and Westminister. The Greater London Authority (led by the Mayor of London) manages the administrative district which not only contains the 2 cities, but multiple towns, villages and suburbs as well which fall within the boundaries of Greater London. Hope that makes sense. - JVG 14:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

London not the Capital

Whilst London is clearly the capital of the United Kingdom, England unlike Wales and Scotland which have Cardiff and Edinburgh respectively, does doesn't have a capital of its own.

So the England Page is incorrect to state that London is the capital of England, because it isn't. If it were, it would be the capital of two places at the same time, which is greedy.

  • This is just silly. Of course London is the capital of England. JeremyA 14:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

England hasn't had it's own government nor administration of any sort since the act of union so it doesn't have a capital city. London is the capital of the UK, but not England. It's not silly, it's a historical and political fact.

  • I am English, London is my capital city! It may be possible to argue that London is not the political capital of England (a mute point as London is the place to which English people send there elected representatives) but it is definitely the historical, traditional and ceremonial capital. Just like Edinburgh and Cardiff remained the repective capitals of Scotland and Wales despite the fact that they too, until recently, were governed entirely from London. The Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with me on this point and a web search reveals that a large number of other people do too. JeremyA 18:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh FFS ... this talk page gets more and more ridiulous sometimes! Firstly, London *is* the capital of the country of England, it is *also* the capital of the (conjoined states / country / call it what you will) of the United Kingdom &c. Whilst the Westminster Parliament is a parliament of the UK it is *also* the parliament of England (but long and involved reasons doesn't sit separately for each guise). Frankly I wish these silly arguments *were* a "mute point" but they aren't even a "moot point" worthy of all this discussion ... --Vamp:Willow 18:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia definition of a capital is as follows:

"In politics a capital (also called capital city or political capital — although the latter phrase has an alternative meaning based on an alternative meaning of "capital") is the principal city or town associated with its government. It is almost always the city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and fixed by law."

No way does England have a government, a seat of government or any offices of government which are for England alone, only stuff for London and for the UK. English people send representatives to the UK parliament, which is in London, and also to the EU parliament but that doesn't make Strasbourg or Brussels the capital of England either.

Just because it's a popular misconception that England = UK and therefore London is capital of (UK/England) doesn't make it true and I have yet to read any argument to the contrary which stands up to scrutiny. (above by Aroberts)'

Om governmental terms, "England" and "UK" can be considered as overlapping/co-terminus from the England standpoint, indede the "UK" provides a 'special case' on the whole multi-nation nation state thing but I'm getting very sorely tempted to state "DFTT". --Vamp:Willow 19:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
London was the Capital of England before the Act of Union in 1603, and thus historically continues to be designated as such despite the lack of a seperate English government. That's how this East Anglian sees it, anyway. - JVG 14:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Angles / Saxons

In editing the opening paragraph on the name "England," I tried to tone down the decisive language which asserted that the divide between Celtic and mainland European languages' name for England (Saxon-origin vs. Angle-origin) derived from their different points of contact -- since the theory doesn't seem to hold water. Problems with it: 1) the Saxons weren't (as stated) the inhabitants of SE England (and hence the gateways of mainland trade routes)-- SE England included Saxons (Sussex and Essex) and Jutes (Kent). I suppose there was probably East Anglian seafaring too -- but surely not more so than from London or Dover! 2) The theory doesn't account for the BIG question -- why does English itself refer to "Angles" and not "Saxons"? Until I see evidence otherwise, it seems quite likely to me that Angleterre is derived by analogy from an already existing word "England." So, basically, if somebody has a source on this jump in; but until then, I prefer less ambitious language. Doops 21:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that the words 'Angle' and 'Saxon' are more cultural than anything - Saxons (from Jutland) and Angles (from Schleswig-Holstein) and the other ethnic groups from Europe became intermixed when they arrived in Britian and even though the different kingdoms may have considered themselves to be either Angle or Saxon the actual ethnic make-up of these groups is more complex.

Also, it is often said that the Welsh/British were driven towards what became Wales and Cornwall but this is misleading. It is unlikely that there were enough Saxon/English immigrants to replace the whole Celtic population or to drive them away. What is more likely is that there were enough English immigrants for them to be culturally dominant which means that the Celtic population was in a minority, and their culture became absorbed into the dominant culture of the Saxons and people of Celtic origin gradually adopted the English language and culture.--Cap 11:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that claim that the Celtic languages derive their names from the Saxons, and the mainlanders from the Angles is hogwash, anyway! In the case of Welsh it's totally untrue, since the Welsh name Lloegr derives from neither the Angles nor the Saxons, but is, I think, the name the country was known as before the bloody immigrants arrived :). The Matter of Britain refers to the place as Logres, too. That doesn't stop us from deriving our names for everything else English from the Saxons, of course. -- Arwel 02:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Country or nation?

I am keen to avoid opening a can of worms here, as I know some people get quite worked up about these things (I've just been catching up with the WikiUser saga), but which term is best? I am aware that some may feel it's important not to mislead uninformed readers into thinking England is an independant state and so would think country is best avoided. However, Scotland opens with the sentence: "Scotland, or in Gaelic, Alba, is a country (formerly an independent kingdom) of northwest Europe, occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain." I'm quite happy to think of Scotland as a country even though I know very well it's not an independant state, but if Scotland can be accurately described as a country surely England is no different. If no one has any objections I will change nation to country in the sentence: "England is the largest, the most populous, and the most densely populated nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, occupying the south-eastern portion of the island of Great Britain." Am I just going over old ground here, or was the phrasing arbitrarily chosen some time ago and since been assumed to be authoritative? — Trilobite (Talk) 12:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You might like to have a look at 'The Isles: A History' by Norman Davies - (one of the main purposes of the book is to get away from traditional anglo-centric history which often confuses England with Britain and assumes that Scottish and Welsh history is part of English history, but at the same time ignores them except when they affect England.) He makes it clear at every stage of the book exactly which country he is talking about and his introduction is a criticism of library catalogues which say confusing things such as <<GREAT BRITAIN HISTORY - SEE ENGLAND>>. For a great example of an anglocentric history see the preface to AJP Taylors 'English History 1914-45'(Oxford History of England) he says that to him the word England means England and Wales, Great Britain; the United Kingdom and the British Empire. He then goes on to say that he can't understand why Scottish people have a problem with this definition! (and then adds insult to injury by explaining why he should use the term Scotch for a Scottish person even though he acknowledges that they find this offensive!) He then goes on to explain that he will stick to ENglish history and where the Welsh, 'Scotch', and Irish have they same history as the English he includes them. - ie. Scottish, Welsh and Irish history only matters when it directly affects England. Therefore he includes Wales, Scotland and Ireland under the term England but then only includes them when they affect England.

The fact of the matter is, that though some people might see a distinction between the words 'country' and 'nation', they are infact synonymous. Look one up in the dictionary and it will list the other one. Some people might say that England is a country and that the United kingdom is a nation and others may say that the United Kingdom is a country and England is a nation. I don't think it it entirely incorrect to say one or the other. Mintguy (T) 13:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the word 'country' could be used to describe just an area of land, hundreds of years ago when travel was much more difficult people used the word country to describe a local area and people in one part of England might refer to another county as a 'foreign country' 'nation' implies a group of people eg. the English people make up the English nation. although this is obviously a more problematic term - depending on whether you are talking about an 'ethnic' group of people (and how do you define if someone is of a particular ethnic group) or a 'civic' idea of nation (such as the UK)where everyone who lives in the geographic area of the UK can be called British regardless of their actual ethnic origin. (although this is just my interpretation and the terms probably have developed more than one meaning and even conflicting meanings over time so it would probably be impossible to use the words accurately without someone misinterpreting you!) The BBC guidelines for their newsreaders is that Britain isn't a nation only Wales, England, Scotland (not sure about Northern Ireland! - a province?)- ie. newsreaders wouldn't be able to refer to the UK as a nation.

Also, this article is about the England-before-the-unification-with-Wales, not the England on the same terms as that that Scotland is talking about; the article on that is at England and Wales (that is, Scotland, England, and Wales aren't independent countries, but Wales and England are even less independent than Scotland, as it were).
In short, it's a great big huge mess.
James F. (talk) 19:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There have been so many different changes in the make-up of the UK througout history that to be accurate you'd have to refer to them as separate entities. In 'The Isles: A History' Norman Davies lists all the different states that the British Isles have accommodated. It is a huge list. off the top of my head there was England (pre 1282 conquest of Welsh principality); England (with principality of Wales 1282 onwards); England (with the rest of Wales 1536 onwards); Great Britain (1707 onwards); United Kingdom (Great Britain and Ireland, 1801 on); Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922 onward) this is only a fraction of them and the list got a lot more complex than this!


I fear that, in working so hard to make the "demographics" section balanced and accurate, we've inflated the question of "Englishness" into excessive prominence. (I'm certainly a guilty party.) Shouldn't a demographics section really be talking more about the urban/rural shift, the north-south economic divide, levels of education and home ownership -- real demographic stuff like that -- and less about issues of terminology? Doops 23:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I too thought this note about identity didn't belong in the demographics section, particularly as it is continually growing to fit the complex reality of what "Englishness" is. I would like to see it split off from this section and put on its own under a new heading, but I don't know what, nor how far down the page it should be. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, while perhaps you're right in saying that the paragraph you deleted needed more work, I have to contest your claim that it was POV. It went out of its way to be objective. Doops 02:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

i must agree!!!!!!!

England not a country?

Since when is England no longer a country. It is no longer a "state" but that does not mean it is not a country. A country is "A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district" (OED online)--Cap 01:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) or more specifically "The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc." (OED online)

I also brought this up at User talk:Jdforrester#Changes_to_England. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "country" of England is England and Wales (i.e., the land of the former nations of England and Wales unified into a new country called "England", which unified with Scotland in 1707; this article, being about the bounds of the former country of England before 1536, should not think to confuse itself with the country of England post-1536, which was considerably larger. I was going by the prevalent terminology on Wikipedia, as the terms "country", "state", and "nation" are often used interchangably and there is no real fixed definition of the differences betwixt them, but here it seems generally used as "state" being a definition of a country as a legal entity, the "country" being a physical and political entity, and "nation" being an ethnic and/or former political entity. However, I'm more than happy to be corrected, as this somewhat tortuous definition seems somewhat... confusing.
AFAIAA, however, the one thing that Northern Ireland isn't is a "country", nor former-country; the legal term for the 4 different bits of the UK is "part", as mentioned elsewhere (on the UK's talk page, IIRC).
James F. (talk) 02:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You say that this article deals only with Pre 1536 England but the article talks about England after this date aswell. Is this article about the "part" of the UK called England or the State of England? Why does the history section say "For the history of England after that date, [1707] see History of the United Kingdom."?

The Northern Ireland page describes NI as one of the "home Nations" surely this is incorrect? It is "part" of the Irish nation not a nation in its own right?

As you will see from my edits to Home Nations, it's considered one of the "Home Nations" and yet not actually a nation. Which is a curiosity.
James F. (talk) 03:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people appear to think that there's some sort of objective truth here. Give it up! Precise legal interpretations are often patently absurd, on the one hand (and usually impossible anyway in UK matters since the constitution is such a loveably ad-hoc hodge-podge); conventional wisdom, on the other, is frequently flat-out wrong. Neither is trustworthy; the best we can do is write readable articles which are as accurate as possible. In almost every context, I can't see anything wrong with calling England a nation, a country, or even kingdom — only in a paragraph about constitutional arrangements do we need to cavil over words which don't (after all) necessarily have a single, fixed meaning. Doops 05:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. We can call it a country in the introduction and when talking generally, and then explain somewhere in the article its precise legal status, which is of course rather complicated. The Scotland article calls Scotland a country, and while I understand the argument I don't think the 1536 union with Wales prevents us from doing the same with England. One more thing: if England was to have its Parliament reinstated would it be legitimate to call it a national parliament, or would we only be able to call it the parliament of a somewhat arbitrary part of England and Wales, i.e. all of England and Wales not under the jurisdiction of the Welsh Assembly. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Interesting question. Of course, "England" isn't going to get its own Parliament, so it's somewhat hypothetical, but it would be a supra-regional sub-national governmental level body, which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue :-)
James F. (talk) 08:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The large new building on Cardiff Bay houses the NATIONAL Assembly of Wales so I see no reason why any English Parliament would not be refered to as "National". No serious political entity is suggesting it get one though. Esquimo 23:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "national" is often loosely used. Melbourne has a wonderful institution called the National Gallery of Victoria, yet nobody has ever suggested Victoria is a country separate from Australia. JackofOz 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

English nation

Please check out English nation and see if you agree with my comments on its talk page. Doops 17:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Land Area Statistics


I wish to know where you can obtain statistics for land area on the census 2001 site? (such as how many sq km's a area is)

I can find population quite easily, but cannot seem to find area, and it must be possible because there is the land area mentioned for each subdivision on this site.

That would probably be because land area is not part of the remit of the Census, which is to do with population. Icundell 23:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

then where can i find the land area information?

Try here Ordance Survey geofacts page


From [here] in edit history it looks like edits done but not listed in history. A hacker? Or admin with a master key? or what?WikiUser 18:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm very confused by what you're trying to say. Can you try and reword and make it clearer please? violet/riga (t) 18:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Huh? What do you mean? Since then there have been 5 edits - 1 correction of a "Britian" typo and 2 vandalism attacks and reversions. Everything looks normal. -- Arwel 18:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn at work. Since she's invisible (and pink) it follows that anything she does must also be invisible (and pink)... -- ChrisO 19:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Capital of England

I see Aroberts is insisting again that England doesn't have a capital. This is, of course, wrong. England is a geographical region, not an administrative entity; constitutionally it comprises the larger part of the entity called "England and Wales" (which is legally and administratively separate from Scotland and Northern Ireland). When the UK was created, E&W's national institutions didn't disappear from London - the High Court and all the other top-level legal institutions remain here. It's also wrong to assert that "the Westminster parliament became the British parliament and left England without one". The Westminster parliament absorbed the Scottish one but continued to deal with England and Wales business as well. Now that devolution has taken place, most Scottish legislation is handled in Edinburgh, but all England and Wales legislation is handled in the same place as it always was - in Westminster. -- ChrisO

I agree. London is the capital of England and the United Kingdon.

If London was the capital of England before the union with Scotland then won't it still be the capital of England after it, providing that no legislation was passed stating otherwise? REX 17:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically both the kingdoms of England and Scotland were abolished in 1707, so strictly neither would have a capital and London became the capital of the Kingdom of Great Britain, but I don't think I want to get into an argument with any Scots about the status of Edinburgh! :) Wales, of course, has only had a formal capital since 1955... -- Arwel 01:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And England of course, still doesn't have one. If an English parliament were to be set up there's no reason to assume it would be located in London, indeed somewhere more central and less congested would make more sense, such as Leicester perhaps or Coventry. --Aroberts 09:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting silly. It is common knowledge that London is the capital of England. All encyclopaedias say so all atlases say so; all English people say so. It is true that constitutionally England does not exist, but when it existed as an independent state London was its capital, it didn’t have a constitution which said so, is just was. When England was incorporated into Great Britain, England was abolished as a state. Therefore this article shouldn’t contain data since 1707 on the area that once was England; it shouldn’t state that the Church of England is the state church, given that there is no state; it shouldn’t show a flag; it shouldn’t show the Royal motto etc. And yet it does, because these things all exist unofficially as in many other countries, such as Israel and the Isle of Man. REX 14:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a persistent misunderstanding here. England was not abolished in 1707. If you want to be nitpicky, England as a singular entity was abolished in 1543, when England and Wales was established. The key point is that E and W still exists, and its capital and constitutional institution (parliament, courts etc) are still located in London, just as they always were. England is a geographical area; England and Wales is the political entity (to be exact, Wales is a province of England under the Acts of Union 1536-1543. Aroberts is quite simply wrong on this score. -- ChrisO
Ok, so now you are telling me that London is the capital of the UK and also of an entity called "England and Wales", and that England is merely a geographical area. You will note that the page this discussion relates to is called England and not England and Wales and yet it contains information which would appear to relate to a policical entity such as Capital - London which by your account is surely incorrect and needs t be changed without this persistent unjustifed reversion.

This is not funny anymore. At first I thought this was someone practicing the Be Bold encouragement. Now it is clear that it is Vandalism. Aroberts has gone too far, forcing his radical POV on Wikipedia with little or no justification. Please note that this article is not only about what we call England today. It is also about the independent England before any union! That country certainly had London as its capital. REX 15:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of constantly reverting the article, Aroberts could produce a reference which supports his case? -- ChrisO 17:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. It would seem only reasonable for those contending Aroberts assertions to do likewise (although in the interim clearly consensus should prevail). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK. Here are some random quotes from sites (some from non-English parts of the UK):
  1. London Welsh School offers a Welsh medium education for primary-aged children, in the heart of England's capital city.[5]
  2. Your route from Westminster to the fabulous Tower Bridge on the north bank of the Thames is rich in the history of England's capital city. [6]
  3. The A1, which connects the capital of England with the capital of Scotland, is one of the most dangerous and ludicrous roads in Europe.[7]
  4. London is the capital of England and of the UK.[8]
  5. In Year 2, pupils develop their understanding of where the United Kingdom is in relation to the rest of the world. They identify London as the capital of England.[9]
  6. In the years between 1890 and 1959, Barking and Dagenham developed from a predominantly rural part of Essex into an industrial and residential suburb of England's capital city. [10]
Of course the real curiosity is that the administrative centre of England and the UK and head of state's residence is really the City of Westminster, until recently in Middlesex, rather than London. But that is similar to The Hague while Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands. --Audiovideo 23:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd like to point out that the Wikipedia article on capitals refers to cases where there are separate administrative and judicial capitals. Now, the court system of England and Wales is separate from that of Scotland - and the England and Wales court has its head at London. Also, there is de jure and de facto definitions - and London most certainly is the de fact capital of England. Finally, and most crucially, this is not an article on 21st century England, it is an article on England as a whole, and for much of that history, London was the capital. Average Earthman 23:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well there seems to be a convincing body of argument to show that London was indeed the capital of an independent England up until 1543, and that the wikipedia article should reflect this history. Now that Vamp Willow's illegal block has been revoked I shall make the appropriate edit to reflect this new consensus.

Please don't. I think you're overstating what there is consensus for. If there is consensus, someone else will make the change you describe. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~, as it gets hard to track who said what. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 11:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Aroberts has a friend. See What is the capital of England, created by the new, and surprisingly bold and focussed user RebelScum (talk · contribs). Bovlb 16:21, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Aroberts is damaging this article. London is the Capital of England! - I don't care what this one person says, it is the Capital of England. Why? Because EVERYONE knows it is the Capital of England. "England and Wales" isn't a country. It's just an area which English law covers within the United Kingdom. Wales is a nation - its capital is Cardiff. England is a nation - its Capital is London. There should be no debate on this. Its plain fact. FACT! I suggest that the administration of Wiki do something about this and soon. David
Cardiff is the capital of Wales because it was decided to make it so in 1955 and because it is now the location for the Wales Assembly. Since partial devolution however, no provision has yet been made at all for the nation of England, and so London remains the capital of the larger UK but England as an individual area doesn't have one. It's just one example of where the popular perception or "common knowlege" just happens to be be wrong.
London is de facto the capital of England. At least return London to the table on the right hand side of the page and put a note at the bottom saying "not official" or something. I just find it ridiculous that we cannot put that London is the capital of England, because it is! David.

Page protected (and now unprotected)

Due to the persistent reverting/revert war taking place on this article, I have temporarily protected the article from editing. I have not chosen a particular version to protect on, and am not personally involved in any way with the dispute. I encourage the user(s) involved to sort out the issues on this talk page instead of flip-flop reverting one another. - Mark 15:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mark, please remember to list protected pages on WP:PP (per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#How). That said, I think the page should be unprotected because:
  • It's not really much of an edit war (in scope and content) and if some visitor sees the "wrong" version (whichever that is) it's not the end of the world.
  • This is an important article, and it's a great shame that visitors can't edit it. Frankly I'd rather have the war continue and give over-eager combatants 3RR timeouts than deprive all of wikipedia's gazillion uninvolved editors the chance to edit it.
  • Right now, the protection is achieving nothing. As one faction appears to consist of the currently blocked Aroberts, the discussion that protection is intended to promote isn't happening. I know he'll be unblocked tomorrow, but surely the low-level magnitude of the edit war doesn't justify multi-day protection?
-- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The page was protected before the user was blocked, but obviously it's achieving nothing now. I have unprotected the page now. - Mark 03:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

de jure capital v. de facto capital

I think we can come to the compromise that de jure London is the capital of England and Wales, but de facto London is the capital of England. David.

I would argue that England doesn't have a de facto capital since de facto is taken to mean "in practice" and England by itself doesn't have any practice as far as things like administration and capitals are concerned, apart from the England football team perhaps, but they don't play in London either. Having said that, I can accept the compromise as offered since it adequately reflects the messiness which is the reality of the situation. --Aroberts 12:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I've been asked on my discussion page how London is de jure the capital of England and Wales. My answer lies in Aroberts' argument that England and Wales is the (sort of) successor to the Kingdom of England (and its capital was London). London is de facto the capital of England because it is conventional to speak of it as such. It isn't de jure capital of England though, I now accept. David.


Can any references be provided, regarding the number of adherents of each religion? I especially find the Watchtower Society figures hard to believe? REX 10:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I share your opinion. Probably the best is to have these figures at estimates.

Sarcelles 08:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The Methodists are at a Quarter of the figure mentioned, if you only take affiliated members. The number mentioned might be realistic for the Greek Orthodox Church, not the Orthodox Churches in general.

Sarcelles 10:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church includes the Greek Orthodox Church and as these figures are pure guesswork, we can't go wrong by calling it Eastern Orthodox Church. All I know is that there are many Russians in England and that calling it Greek Orthodox Church, excludes the Russian Orthodox Church. REX

The idea that there are 31 million Anglicans in England is beyond ridicule. There are a couple of mllion practicing Catholics and a couple of mllion practicing Muslims. Less than half a million people attend c of E on a Sunday. Please be serious!

Your comment precisely indicates the problem here, by appearing to suggest there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England, which is just as ludicrous as suggesting that there are 31 million practicing Anglicans. The real problem is that there is no cited reference for these figures, although I suspect they are probably taken from the question on the census that asked peoples religion. There is a real danger of comparing apples with pears here. Claiming a religion on a census form is not the same thing as practicing it; and the number of practicing adherants is not the same as attendence figures. -- Chris j wood 18:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Arms and Flag

Does anyone else not like the flag and arms on the infobox? I think that they are too small and look squashed. I especially don't like the arms, I suggest that they be replaced by this and possibly the flag by this. Please tell me what you think. REX 15:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


English Flag English Coat of Arms
(Flag) (Coat of Arms)
Royal motto: Dieu et mon droit
(French: "God and my right")
England's location within Europe
England's location within the UK
England's location within the UK
Official language English de facto
Capital London de facto
Largest city London
 - Total
Ranked 1st UK
130,395 km²
 - Total (2001)
 - Density
Ranked 1st UK
Religion Church of England
(Established Church): 31,500,000
Roman Catholic: 5,000,000
Muslim: 1,600,000
Methodist: 1,400,000
Jewish: 267,000
Eastern Orthodox: 250,000
Sikh: 336,000
Hindu: 559,000
Baptists: 140,000
Mormons: 100,000-200,000
Unification 9th century by
Egbert of Wessex
Currency Pound sterling (£) (GBP)
Time zone UTC, (GMT), Summer: UTC +1 (BST)
National anthems None officially; de facto (as part of the UK):

 God Save the Queen
 Rule Britannia
 Land of Hope and Glory

National flower rose (red, white)
Patron saint St. George

"The three lions were first definitely used by Richard I (Richard the Lionheart), on his second seal, in the late twelfth century (although it is thought that Henry I may have bestowed it on his son Henry before then)."

Henry I didn't have a son named Henry, at least not a legitimate son. This may refer to Henry II and his son Henry the Young King? Everyking 00:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I removed the following short section, headed "Genetics":

Recent studies on the genetics of the English peoples (excluding recent arrivals in the 20th century) show that most are decended from palaeolithic inhabitants of England and there has been very little genetic contribution from Celtic or Anglo-Saxon migrations. However some of these results have been contradictory since they depend on partly on how one chooses the location from which the original Celtics or Anglo-Saxons came from.

I removed it not because it doesn't belong but because it's exceptionally unclear. The first sentence seems to imply that each of us has only a single ancestor per generation, rather than 2n, as well as neglecting to explain what it means by "very little genetic contribution." The second sentence is even less intelligible. Furthermore, even if this info were clarified, it certainly doesn't deserve its own section — it should go under "inhabitants." Doops | talk 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


I was recently in London, and was wondering about some symbols I kept seeing, whether they were additional emblems of England, of London, or of specific royalties. Buckingham Palace seemed to have an awful lot of unicorns; there were dragons all over the City of London and Buckingham Palace; and I saw a grid or gate symbol both in St. Paul's and on lampposts around Westminster. Do these three symbols (unicorn, dragon, gate) have specific significance? Thanks! You can reply on my talk page if that's more appropriate. --zandperl 16:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You're very observant. The Unicorn is the supporter of the old Royal Arms of Scotland and appears today in the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom. The coat of arms of the City of London is supported by dragons (see Temple Bar (London) for a great example; I'm not sure why you'd see them around Buckingham Palace. (A dragon appeared in the English royal arms as a supporter in the Tudor era, but that's not likely to have left much of an imprint on the streetscape.) The "grid" or "gate" you describe is a portcullis which has been used as a royal heraldic badge since (if I recall correctly) Tudor times as well. Of all the various royal badges, it has for some unknown (to me, at least) become associated with the Palace of Westminster and is accordingly often seen in Parliamentary stuff. (Often red for the Lords and green for the commons, to match the upholstery.) The portcullis also appears as the crest sitting atop the arms of the City of Westminster which is presumably what you saw on the lampposts. Doops | talk 07:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

'Engliss' French for 'England'?

Does anybody have a reference for this claim? I can only find the word 'Engliss' as the middle English (c. 1300) word for 'English'. If nobody can provide a reference for this claim, I will delete it. --Susurrus 01:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I always thought the French was Angleterre, with Royamme Uni for UK. - JVG 22:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

English Arms (Three Lions) or UK Arms - discussion at UK Wikipedian's

There is an attempt being made to remove national symbols and replace them with UK symbols. I argue that this is innapropriate on the pages for England, Scotland or Wales; but others seem determined to remove national symbols. I have initiated a section on the UK wikipedian's page for this issue, as its outcome affects the England page and the Wales page too: Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#England_page.2C_Scotland_page.2C_Wales_page:_National_Arms_or_UK_Arms --Mais oui! 07:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?

Added the following link

Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


The line

The English frequently include their neighbours in the general term "British" while Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish, proud of their separate identities, tend to be more forward about referring to themselves by one of those more specific terms.

implies that Cornwall and the Cornish are not part of England. I could probably tweak this to The majority of the English or similar, but is there evidence that the Cornish people *in general* consider themselves Cornish first and English and/or British second?

Fourohfour 11:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It actually used to say "some" Cornish, if I recall correctly. Go ahead and be bold. Doops | talk 15:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Cornwall for a fuller discussion of the topic. Apparently between 2 and 55% of Cornish people think they are Cornish not English, but that makes no difference to the fact that Cornwall is a part of England, and most English people, who think that, should also be considwered (it is not just what Cornish people think that counts), SqueakBox 16:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this, as you could use the same argument against any smaller 'nation'/potential 'nation' inside a larger one. Hopefully the way it has been rephrased emphasises the fact that Cornwall is (merely technically, or otherwise, or however you want to consider it) part of England, whilst not everyone who lives there considers themselves English.
Fourohfour 19:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well there is actually a Cornish people page now so to refer to the Cornish as a people seems in keeping with this. Bretagne 44 16:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish separatism

Before anyone else does, I'll point out that I changed the line

The English frequently include their neighbours in the general term "British" while the Scots, Welsh and Irish, proud of their separate identities, tend to be more forward about referring to themselves by one of those more specific terms.


.....while the Scots, Welsh and some inhabitants of Northern Ireland (primarily Republicans), proud of their separate identities, tend to be more forward about referring to.....

This is because

  • Irish *could* be taken to include those living in the Republic of Ireland, which is not a part of the United Kingdom.
  • Phrases along the lines of 'the people of Northern Ireland' are considered more politically neutral by news organisations than (e.g.) 'Irish' or 'Northern Irish' which, rightly or wrongly, can provoke resentment amongst those who consider themselves British (i.e. Unionists), not Irish.
  • There is a very clear split in the 'Britishness'/'Irishness' identity thing in Northern Ireland along Republican lines which should be noted.

It's not my intention to favour either side or pass judgement.

Fourohfour 19:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

England (disambiguation) / Talk:England_(disambiguation)

Would be grateful for some feedback discussion at the above disambig talk page. Fourohfour 11:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sheffield Population

The following is the population for the Sheffield area

E17000 Sheffield Urban Area 640,720
E17005 Aughton 13,456
E17006 Beighton 10,676
E17004 Chapeltown 22,665
E17007 Mosborough/Highlane 18,585
E17001 Rawmarsh 18,210
E17002 Rotherham 117,262
E17003 Sheffield 439,866
Sheffield Aggregate 491,792

Note that the areas in bold are suburbs of sheffield (both in the local authority and urban area.--josh 12:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why single out Sheffield in this case? The numbers given on the list before are taken out of context - I agree - see Talk:List of English cities by population - but Sheffield is not special here. If you are going to change this please change all the populations. In a list, all population figures must come from the same source and be calculated with the same methodology. Morwen - Talk 13:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The figures should probably be taken out altogether. This is just one of many flaws in the system used to calculate urban areas especially when applying it to a city. The reason a only did sheffield is because I know the geography and could instantly spot which were suburbs. I'm sure there's other cases but arbatrily asigning areas based on statistics caused the confused mess that is the UK population statistics. The definition of a city in England these days is purely subjective.--josh 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that the actual numbers could do with being removed - although removing them tends to mean that people will move things around or change the list depending on whether they are looking at urban area, local authority, or conurbation areas - meaning that the list will contain different places depending on which particular definition people use. I would suggest leaving the list that is there (but I would, wouldn't I?) simply due to the fact that the urban area populations will give a better idea of actual places, and you won't end up with silliness with local authorities such as "Kirklees" or "Sandwell" being considered as towns/cities. To throw this in to the debate, the page also says "in British English the normal meaning of city is 'a continuously built-up urban area'", which is the figures given, unless you start talking about conurbations, which aren't cities anyway...
Perhaps another idea may be to remove the list here entirely and simply link to List of English cities by population and List of English districts by population so that people can select from both potential ways of doing things. Steven J 14:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Map Misleading

I'm a technological dummy so somebody else will need to help out here. The bottom map, in red, is fine, as it clearly distinguishes England from the other British places. But the top map, at first and even second glance, appears to show Northern Ireland in the same colour as England. Can the colours be differentiated, or the scale increasded, or something, to make it clear that NI is not a part of England? Cheers JackofOz 13:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me - England is in a different green than the other nations of the UK. David 15:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Page too long

This page (the England article) is way too long! Any chance of making it shorter? Especially without the Shakespeare


Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[11] [12]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [13]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Celtic Sea is still used as a term distinct from Bristol Channel. The celtic Sea is the area of open water roughly North of Cornwall, South of Ireland and West of Southwestern Wales. The Bristol Channel refers specifically to the narrow stretch separating the Southwest of England and South Wales into which the River Severn flows.

Cornwall was never a sovereign state in the modern sense as during that time there was no such thing. Lands were defined as belonging to kings and families, not the population in general. Cornwall was treated as different from the English kingdom(s) by reason of language and culture, but as those defining characteristics faded through exposure to English language and customs and rule by English lords the distinction became less defined. The modern attitude of the "native" people of Cornwall is not so separatist as the Welsh or Scots, who think of themselves as entirely cut off from England and Englishness but there is still a strong feeling of being somewhat different and distinct WITHIN England. Certainly the Cornish I have spoken to seem much more hostile to the idea of being administered as part of a "South West England" region than to being considered part of England in general. Esquimo 15:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have told you about eight times, Local Government Act 1988 established Cornwall County Cornwall as an ENGLISH County Council. Legally, now Cornwall is part of England. It doesn't matter when it ceased to be "independent". How were Northumbria, Mercia etc incorporated into England? There is no record of an Act of Union if that's what you are after. If they don't need one, then neither does Cornwall. Britannica and Encarta call Cornwall an English county. I can tell that you haven't read Wikipedia:No original research yet. Here's the gist: it doesn't matter what you can prove or think you can prove on your own. Even if you were to spend ten years in the law library in the Houses of Parliament with Giovanni di Stefano and found some "loophole" in the law which said that Cornwall is an independent country, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Cornwall is an English county. Rex(talk)Flag of Albania.svg 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You really have trouble keeping up at times don't you? This is the start of an investigation into the change that occurred at this time (1600) which resulted in the general view of Cornwall being revised from country to county. It happened at the same time as a number of other changes in the way the British Isles where portrayed and I think this change is relevant to Cornish, English, British and UK pages on Wikipedia. It was a radical change that the establishment brought about in the way all Britons perceived their land.

Bretagne 44 19:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't get how this guy (Bretagne 44) can continue to think that Cornwall is some sort of seperate country. It is a county of England. There is no debate!! Now give it a rest, for crying out loud! David 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Local Government Act of 1988 didn't look at the status of Cornwall, it merely laid down which of the 4 existing nations each local authority fell into (as different regulations and laws apply depending on which of the 4 UK countries a council is in). So although the Act obviously classified Cornwall as being subject to regulations for English councils, as opposed to Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland councils, it did not have the function or power to "declare" Cornwall part of England - which it undoubtedly is in practice if not in the minds of some Cornishmen and -women. Esquimo 15:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on William The Conquerer

Some school histories of England begin with the Norman Conquest in 1066, and the numbering system used for English monarchs treats that event as a blank slate from which to count. (For example, the Edward I who reigned in the 13th century was not the first king of England of that name, only the first since the conquest). But although he unquestionably engineered a pivotal moment in the country's history, William the Conqueror did not "found" or "unify" the country; a well-established English kingdom had already existed for several centuries.

This paragraph is factually correct, but it screams to me "Whomever wrote this is peeved that people think that England begins with the Norman Conquest". While I agree with their conclusions, the apparent defensive/rebutting tone does not seem appropriate. Am I alone on this one? --Bletch 20:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're right that the article shouldn't sound like it has a chip on its shoulder. But I think the point the passage makes is worth making and shouldn't be excised completely. Can you come up with a flatter way of putting it? Doops | talk 21:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this proposal: Remove that paragraph and add to the intro of the following paragraph:

In 1066, William the Conqueror and the Normans conquered the existing Kingdom of England and instituted an Anglo-Norman administration and nobility who, retaining proto-French as their language for the next three hundred years, ruled as custodians over English commoners. Although the language and racial distinctions faded rapidly during the middle ages, the class system born in the Norman/Saxon divide persisted longer — arguably with traces lasting to the modern day.

I don't really have any ideas on how to reaffirm the "countryhood of England" prior to 1066 other then explicitly referring to the "Kingdom of England". Or maybe the original schpiel can be moved into History of England. Comments? --Bletch 21:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I reiterate how utterly fed up I am with whoever keeps adding things to the effect that Britain or England has no national anthem, flag etc just because they can't find any law passed declaring them to be so. Britain does not do things like that. No law is required to make these things true. DJ Clayworth 19:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, it may be justified in this case. DJ Clayworth 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Can I ask whether you consider my edit vandalism? I don't mind especially whether or not "God Save the Queen" is listed, but it needs to reference the section explaining the issue, and why its rarely, if ever, used as a national anthem outside of a sporting context. Morwen - Talk 19:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Religion again

Why are we listing Restafari and Mormon - I think that those figures are extremely unlikely. Especially the Mormon figures: there is a vast difference between 100,000 and 200,000. Do we have any sources? Izehar 15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea that according to the last census being a Jeddhi warrior has a fair number of adherents. Re Rastas I have no figures but I certainly find it at least as credible as the alleged 31 million C of E adherents. How many of then went to church this year? I imagine many are like me in that we were baptised as babies into the C of E, but that does not make for a Christian. I propose that someone sources all the figures or we remove them all and just leave a list of religions. I agree the Mormonn figure is ludicrous, and would love to know how the Buddhist figures were compiled. The figure also imply at least 2 thirds of Breits are religious. I would dispute that too, SqueakBox 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As Welsh people says: The 2001 Census showed that slightly less than 10% of the Welsh population are regular church- or chapel-goers (a slightly smaller proportion than in England or Scotland),, which I find a much more credible figure for England too. -- Arwel (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course someone may identify themselves or be identified as a Sikh for ethnic reasons without being religious. Rastas may well have been baptised as Cof E and therefore "belong" to both groups. I question whether we can get a clear picture but if we had some solid stats we could use them, SqueakBox 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to removing the religion section from the infobox and maybe scrap the ethnicity section while we're at it? I think that it would be appropriate because those sections cannot be found in the Template:Infobox Country and because they seem extremely hard to source. Izehar 15:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go for it, I fully agree, SqueakBox 15:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Right - I'll remove them now. I think that it is repetative; what is written there can be found at Demographics of England. Izehar 15:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

On-going deletion of England-related categories: Category:Transport in England

For those editors who are not followers of the goings-on at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, it may be worth noting that there has recently been a spate of England-related categories nominated for deletion. Several England-related cats have actually been deleted recently.

The latest cat up for deletion is Category:Transport in England. This is a huge subject area, and although the cat is still in its infancy, it already has 15 subcategories and 152 articles, and has the potential to be a major tool, of great benefit to editors interested in the England-related articles.

Transport is one of the principal subcats of Category:England. Other primary subcats have been deleted recently, and if this continues Category:England is going to start looking very naked.

The overwhelming consensus thus far is to delete. If you would like to contribute to the debate and vote, please see:

--Mais oui! 11:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that when nominated the category has almost no content. It was populated in an attempt to prevent deletion - he didn't populate it when he created it, so it can't have been that important to him in itself, and no users, English or otherwise (and there are many very enthusiastic contributors on British transport) showed any signs of finding this intervention in the long established and well organised Category:transport in the United Kingdom useful. I made detailed comments on why this category is unhelpful and even misleading on categories for deletion, and so far every single voter has agreed with me. CalJW 23:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)