Talk:Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Intro Text

Is it just me or is the intro text

"The nation has had no real independence since 1282, when it was taken by the English King. It has no significant national government (see the National Assembly for Wales), does not issue its own currency and is not in control of any armed forces. These are the powers of the national government of the UK, based at Westminster."

a tad anti-Welsh? Seems almost unecessary information at best, Welsh-bashing at worst. Edward I is covered below, and what other nation governed externally has such a putdown for an intro? I'd rather see geographic location (western peninsula of GB), statement on no taxing powers, mention of the Acts of Union etc. mynameismonkey

Welsh Politics

I just wanted to know, what can Orders-in-council do for Wales? I thought also that in theory, the prince of wales is actually the real Head of State in Wales?

Amlder20 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but as Wales is bound by the laws of "England and Wales" (medieval imperialist power-term if ever there was one!) then Orders in Council can be used to subject anyone in Wales to pretty much anything the Privy Council decree, just as they can in England. This came into full force during the second world war for example, when large portions of land belonging to Welsh farmers were taken away from them by the MoD under spurious O-in-C inspired control orders. The local officials on the ground were primed to say it would be "returned after the war" - of course, in many cases, it never was. MarkThomas 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Government of Wales Act 2006 means that for the first time ever Orders in Council for Wales will be signed by the Queen on the advice of the First Minister of Wales and Welsh Ministers instead of by the Prime Minister. Whilst still subject to supervision by the UK government this represents a definate step forward for Wales as far as equality with Scotland stands.

Removed list of places

I've removed the list of places which would otherwise be orphaned, as they are all now linked to, with the exception of Abersychan, leaving no good reason for them being listed. Warofdreams 17:15, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not the Royal Coat of Arms

I am a republican, so what do I care? But that is not the Royal Coat of Arms for Wales. maybe it is something to do with the Prince of Wales? But he is not the sovreign so his coat of arms are not those of Wales.

I think you're right. What references do we have for this coat of arms, and what is it supposed to be the coat of arms of? I can see how the royal coats of arms for Scotland and England-and-Wales are different, because they have separate heraldic systems. But that doesn't explain how Wales could have one. Perhaps it's historical, and it's the arms of Glyndŵr or someone, but then it should be in the history section. Can anyone explain why we should keep this? Marnanel 00:47, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

After a little googling, it turns out that quarterly or and argent four lions passant gardant counterchanged appears to be associated with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd: [1]. Some more searching shows that Burke's Peerage appears to believe that these are "the arms of the Principality of Wales"[2], which is probably authoritative enough. Marnanel 00:59, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm about as nationalist a Welshman as you'll ever find, but there is no "royal coat of arms" other than that of the UK. The arms depicted on the page are Llywelyn's. mynameismonkey

I'm a Welshman, not a nationalist (although come on Wales, let's beat England this afternoon!) but a communist, but there are seperate coats of arms for Scotland and England (although they're almost identical). Charles as Prince of Wales has his own standard as can be seen at http://www.fotw.net/flags/gb-royal.html#pow Dafyddyoung 16:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I take it that the above backs up my edit today? Doops | talk 06:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

These 'arms' were used as the standard of Owain Glyndwr during his rebellion (1400-10). It has since become a symbol of welsh independence and can be seen particularly in North Wales. In 2003 the Millenium Stadium authorities tried to ban it from the ground as racist but backed down after many pointed out it was no more racist than the English three lions. It was flown throughout Wales (including by the National Assembly) during 2004 to mark the 600th anniversary of the first sitting of the Welsh Parliament at Machynlleth.

According to the www.princeofwales.gov.uk 'The Duke of Edinburgh suggested in 1962 that The Prince of Wales should have his own flag to use after his investiture exclusively for use during visits to Wales and in Welsh waters. The Queen gave her approval. The standard, devised by the College of Arms, is based on the Arms of the Principality of Wales, also known as the Arms of Llewelyn ap Gruffydd, the last native Prince of Wales.' If the College of Arms says they are the Arms of Wales then legally they are.

According to the Book of Public Arms (W.H. Fox-Davies, 2nd ecition 1915):

"These arms have had some offficial recognition since the the reign of Queen elizabeth, and by a Royal Warrant, dated 1912, are now borne by the Price of wales on an inescutcheon in the centre of his arms."

(An inescutcheon is a small shield in the middle of the big shield)

Lozleader 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Principality

Despite often being called one, I don't believe Wales is a principality. Dictionaries define one as "a territory ruled by a prince". Wales, however, isn't. "The Prince of Wales" is merely a title. He has nothing to do with the rule of Wales - Wales is ruled by the Queen, by Parliament, or by the Welsh Assembly, depending on how you look at it, but certainly has nothing to do with the Prince of Wales. -- Varitek

Well, Kingdom is defined as "A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign.", and I don't really see Brenda doing much ruling as such. So does that make the UK not a Kingdom? Morwen 14:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ah, but she does rule the country. She chooses the Prime Minister to wield power in her name, she has to give Royal Assent to bills, she alone has the power to dissolve Parliament, etc. I know that no royal since Anne has refused assent, and that the monarch always chooses the ruler of the party with a workable majority, and always takes the PM's advice on dissolution - but nonetheless, the powers are hers. The Prince of Wales has no power whatsoever in the rule of Wales (or any other powers unconnected with the Duchy of Cornwall, as far as I know.) Varitek

The Queen cannot be considered to rule in any manner. Like Charles, she is no more than a symbol who rubber stamps parliament law. Not many realise it, but Wales is not actually considered part of the united Kingdom because it is a principality. This is the reason why the royal standard shows scotland, ireland and England twice. This is why the royal crown contains symbols of sctotland, ireland and England but not Wales.

In short, although it means absolutely nothing, the Prince of Wales is the monarch of Wales and Not the Queen.

Absolute nonsense. The Queen is the monarch over all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Wales is as much an integral part of the country as any other part. The reason the Royal standard doesn't show a Wales-related symbol is because Wales was an integral part of England when the unions with Scotland and Ireland took place. The Prince of Wales is not a monarch but a monarch-in-waiting. Owain 12:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not one country but a Union made up of Wales, Northern Ireland], Scotland, Cornwall, Cumbria, Isle of Man and England.

Er, don't let the Manx here you say that, RhM. The Isle of Man is a Crown dependency but not part of the United Kingdom. -- Picapica 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, what's wrong with thinking of it as a country made up of other countries? I call Wales a country and I call the UK one too. Country is just one of those words whose definition is quite vague. But I'm really not sure if Cumbria counts as one! Garik 22:36, 29 April 2006 (BST)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not one country.... Eh? What a load of rubbish. The United Kingdom is a state, it is not a nation state, as it comprises several nations. The term country can be applied to both a state and a nation. So the UK is a country and Wales is a country as well. Alun 06:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's in the name, isn't it? "Consituent country"? But it bothers me that none of the UK countries are in the list. VolatileChemical 16:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Queen rules the UK as a constitutional monarch,the Prime Minister governs it with parliament. The Principality of Wales is specifically created by the Queen for her heir. It is a title but carries no governmental roles nowadays although it did in the middle ages. Wales is a Principality just as England is a Kingdom. Both are subsumed within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It says on the article that 'many people' object to the word Principality for Wales. Which poll of Welsh people says that? Some Welsh people with nationalist or republican sympathies dont like it many others love it. I saw a poll on BBC Wales Today that said that 77% of Welsh speakers in a poll liked the Prince of Wales. Unfortunately I cant find a link to that anywhere on the internet. This article should not be biased towards any particular political view.

---

There's this concept called feudalism. Each territorial unit has a lord, who is a vassal of a higher lord in a hierarchical structure. The term "sovereign" only applies to a lord at some level in the system when the territory he controls is... sovereign. The Prince of Wales is in name the non-sovereign feudal lord of the principality, and a vassal of the sovereign of the UK.

De-annexation

When was Wales de-annexed from England? It got annexed in 1536 or whenever, was considered part of England when the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed, but at some point the term 'England and Wales' began being used in legislation. Does anyone know when this was? Morwen 14:27, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Aha, found it. Morwen 15:54, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In 2006 the Government of Wales Act was given Royal Assent and for the first time in British history at least there is now a legal place called Wales that is separate from England. The Act says that there will from now on be a legal entity called 'Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Wales' which puts Wales on equal footing with Scotland and Northern Ireland. Interestingly I dont think there is a similar status for England whose laws are passed as UK laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.102.96 (talk • contribs)

The actual wording is the "Crown in right of the Welsh Assembly Government", which isn't the same thing. Owain (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Wales was annexed into the Kingdom of England under the Act of Union 1536 and remains so to this day; thats why in law reference to England includes Wales. The Government of Wales Act 2006 will not change this, although there will be an entity known as Her Majesty in Right of Wales, Wales will not be on equal footing with Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.

It is still part of the Royal Kingdom of England but that means nothing as England joined with Scotland in 1603 and then Ireland in 1801 to form the United Kingdom. So Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland are all subsumed within the UK. Does anyone argue England is not a country? No. So why say Wales isnt?

Cambria

>>The Romans gave Wales the name of Cambria<<

Oh, no, they didn't. This part of the historical introduction needs rewriting.

Wales, together with what is today the "West Country" of England, was a part of Britannia Prima (a 4th-century subdivision of the earlier Britannia Superior). Cambria is a Latinization of Cymru first used centuries after the Romans had quit Britain.

Monmouthshire

I'm not too clear on the details but for a long time Monmouthshire's status as being in England or Wales was somewhat ambiguous - a lot of legislation applying to Wales only would refer to "Wales and Monmouthshire". Does anyone know much about this and want to put in a note? -- Timrollpickering 11:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/wales/status.shtml GWO 12:38, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

General question on Welsh History. The second Welsh wars were started after Dafydd ap Gruffydd attacked Hawerden Castle in North Wales. From Where did he launch this attack? Anyone know? Denbigh or Caergwrle - have read differing histories.

All the books I have read say Caergwrle and it woujld make more sense geographically as a base for the raid--Snowded 11:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto

This page gives "Y ddraig Goch ddyry cychwyn" (aside: why the capital G?); the Welsh (w:cy) article has "Cymru am byth". Which is it? –Hajor

Cymru am Byth is the national motto, Y ddraig goch... is the royal motto; for about 6 years in the 1950s the national flag included a badge with the draig goch motto, but it was dropped reputedly because there's an alternative translation which is rather more, um, earthy! Arwel 16:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Changing the one here to Cymru am byth then. "Wales For Ever", right? –Hajor 00:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Arwel 00:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi "Y ddraig Goch.." is incorrect spelling of the motto. Its correct spelling is "Y ddraig coch ddyry cychwyn". Which means The Red Dragon Advances.

Y ddraig goch is correct: draig is feminine and so triggers the soft mutation of the initial consonant of the following adjective. --Angr/_comhrá 13:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Y ddraig coch ddyry cychwyn is the official motto of the Welsh Office, now Wales Office. It is therefore the official motto of the UK government in Wales.

I'm not too bothered about the Wales Office but Angr is right; the motto is Y ddraig goch ddyry cychwyn ("The red dragon should go forward"). Actually the draig goch in question was not a dragon but a tawny-coloured bull. The motto comes from a later 15th century cywydd by the poet Deio ab Ieuan Du, from Cardiganshire. It comes near the end of a cywydd diolch (a cywydd of thanks in response to a gift asked of someone by way a cywydd gofyn, or "beseeching cywydd") to Siôn ap Rhys of Aberpergwm. This bull seems to have been a formidable breeder. The poet states that it and its partner are "of the breed of dragons to bring forth calves and milk". The "red dragon" (the bull) "should get going" by mounting its partner in a grove (a convention borrowed from the love poetry of the period)! Good poem too (see A. Eleri Davies (ed.), Gwaith Deio ab Ieuan Du (Cardiff, 1992): you'll find the Welsh text on pages 36-37). I don't know how the motto found its way to the Welsh Office, but I rather imagine it was a lover of Welsh literature with a sense of humour - and mischief! - who might have suggested it. Could anyone enlighten me on that part of the story? Enaidmawr 00:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The motto predates the Welsh Office: it was added to the badge of Wales by order in council dated March 11, 1953:

London Gazette Issue 39798 published on the 13 March 1953

'At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the llth day of March, 1953.

PRESENT,
The QUEEN's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.

HER Majesty was this day graciously pleased, by

and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order

that for the greater honour and distinction of Wales

the Royal Badge of Wales, namely, the Red Dragon

passant, be augmented as follows: "Within a

circular riband argent fimbriated or bearing the

motto, Y-DDRAIG-GOCH-DDYRY-CYCHWYN, in

letters vert, and ensigned with a representation of

the Crown proper, an escutcheon per fesse argent

and vert and thereon the Red Dragon passant" as

in the painting hereunto annexed is more plainly

depicted.

And that the Most Noble Bernard Marmaduke,

Duke of. Norfolk. K.G.,. G.C.V.O., £arl Marshal

and Hereditary Marshal of England, do forthwith

cause the necessary directions to be given herein

accordingly.'

It had earlier (1906) been included in the grant of arms to the City of Cardiff (Letters Patent dated August 26 1906). The arms themselves were an amalgam of national emblems (dragon, leek and ostrich feathers all make an appearance). As the grantee is free to chose any motto they want (as long as it isn't the royal motto), somebody connected with Cardiff corporation in the Edwardian era must have been the insigator.

Lozleader 07:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Caerdydd

Removing a piece of useful information ('Caerdydd') from the page just because it's not English was pretty damned childish. Varitek 20:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nation or not?

The page has been edited with the comment 'Wales is not a nation'. But the OED definition of the word 'nation' includes A group of people having a single ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation, but without a separate or politically independent territory.. Therefore Wales is a nation. Besides, I'd rather talk about 'Six Nations Rugby' than 'Two nations, a combined nation and province, two countries and a principality Rugby'.

Wales is a nation, a country, and a principality. Th terms are not mutually exclusive. Wales is *not* a state. It is also part of a Kingdom. mynameismonkey

Although, it should become gradually obvious to a reader, it is not stated anywhere that "Wales is a nation" (or "almost universally considered to be one including by the UN and the UK government" or something if anyone objects to that statement). The word, "nation", isn't even in the article. Whereas, Scotland and England are both initially described as nations.

Would anyone object if I change "is one of the four constituent parts of" to "is a nation (and one of four constituent parts) of" or "is a nation"?

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 23:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, if someone objects they will let you know PDQ. Alun 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did it myself. Take care. Alun 06:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wales is a nation under occupation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.134 (talk • contribs) .

Occupied by who the elected Welsh Assembly or the elected UK government? Both are Labour for whom the majority of Welsh people voted. Thats the problem with democracy, people dont all vote for who the nationalists want them too!

"Stranger or slave"

Can anyone point me to an authoritative source that shows that the Germanic root from which the name of Wales derives can mean "slave"? Marnanel 15:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wealas, from Saxon wealh - servant, slave: http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/english/we/wealas.html Mynameismonkey

My understanding is that the Germanic term may ultimately come from the name of a Celtic tribe living under Roman rule, possibly the "Volcae" in what is now southern Germany or Bohemia. This led to the use of the tribe's name to mean "Romanised Celts" in general, and it is this sense which is supposed to be behind the use of the term elsewhere e.g. the "Welsh" were Romanised Celts to the Germanic Anglo-Saxon invaders, the French-speaking population of Belgium known as "Walloons" would also ultimately be descended from Romanised Celts, as would the Wallachians of modern Romania. I think Germanic tribes tended to use different terms to describe other non-Celtic "strangers". The Anglo-Saxon reference above might actually be a secondary meaning resulting from Anglo-Saxon dominance over their "Welsh" neighbours.

Any academic references to back this up would of course be helpful.

Wealas is a Saxon word meaning foreingers, this has then developed into Wales. In 990, while it is true that the Saxons had pushed the Welsh back, Wales was still a distinctly different country that Saxon kings had no authority over. As for the Bible entry in Genesis I fail to see how an ancient book translated from Hebrew, to Latin and then into Old English is a difintive source of information.--Rhydd Meddwl 18:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Cymru fo am byth"

...means "Wales for ever", doesn't it? Some anon has just changed the translation to "Wales never yields". Can someone with more Welsh than I have comment? Marnanel 16:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The form "Cymru fo am byth" is only used as part of the lyrics of Men of Harlech as far as I can tell (Google search). The more popular version is "Cymru am byth", but this is still far from being a national motto. It is, however, probably the closest thing we have to one. And it means "Wales for ever", yes. Gareth 21:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cities

An anon has added Bangor and St David's to the list of subdivisions of Wales under "cities". While it's true that they are cities, they're administered by county councils and aren't unitary authorities in the same way that Cardiff or Swansea are. I'm not sure how properly to resolve the ambiguity here; perhaps the whole section needs rewriting. Marnanel 18:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Home

My great-grandfather immigrated to America around the turn of the century; so Cymru is still home to me, but I've never seen my homeland. I've tried to find research sites, but all I've gotten is sites for the damned tourists. Can anyone give me a hint as to good places to look for family in Cymru and information on it as a whole? I'd be much obliged.

incorrect

The nation has had no real independence since 1282, when it was taken by the English King.

The above statement is incorrect in the sense that Wales has just as much independence as any other nation in great britain.All power is central at westminster,with representatives from both England,Scotland,Northern Ireland and Wales.

Which doesn't really sound like real independence to me.

both statments are incorrect

The welsh people had a short spell of independence during the 1400's thanks to the King of free Wales, Owain Glyndwr currently Wales is going through the devolution process which in lamens terms means that we can make our own decisions but the english is still in overall control.

The UK parliament is in control, which consists of MPs representing England and Wales (and the rest!). There are more English MPs because it is a bigger country, but most of the people in power in the cabinet actually seem to be scottish! Jameskeates 11:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wales is unable to become an independent country because we no longer have anything worth trading.

The above is not true, Cymru has plenty of commodities worth trading, these include farming products, timber, fishing and mining, Cymru also has a tremendous amount of unexplored potential for tourism. So if Cymru became independent once more then we would be able to cope fine and our economy would actually improve than it is now.--Rhydd Meddwl 19:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Can people stop giving their opinions as facts. It is fine to say 'I think Wales should be independent' but you cannot say 'Wales should be independent' as that implies you somehow know things that noone else does.

"Character of the Welshman"?

a native pure-blood welshman is a coch draig with unchallanged intelligance and language skills

Would these language skills reach to the correct spelling of "Intelligence" perhaps?

And indeed better punctuation and better Welsh (draig goch)... garik 14:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's ddraig goch ;)

No it's not! Well, it is if there's a definite article (so y ddraig goch), but the radical form (meaning '(a) red dragon') is draig goch, as in 'Draig goch yw pob Cymro y mae ei waed yn bur':) garik 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Age breakdown

Why are the age ranges listed so skewed? Its no surprise, and not really informative, that the age ranges spanning 15 years have more people in that range than the ranges that span only 2 years. I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to show. Whatever it is intended for, I'm sure it could be done better by having a more balanced distribution of ranges, perhaps targetting a 10 year span for each group. Tritium6 20:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those are the age ranges used by the 2001 Census site. -- Arwel 21:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One rabbit for you to cahse at the battle of Boworth field Henry tudor a welshman had abanner for hos army it was the red dragon ( cadwaladr banner) which is now that of wales. why is this not in your history . This factb is recorded in many history books

Yes the history should make it clearer that the Welsh Twdur/Tudor family took over the English throne by force of arms and from that date on the monarchy was English and Welsh in nature as shown by the use of the Welsh Dragon on the Royal Coat of Arms. It was the Scottish Stuarts who removed the Welsh Dragon and replaced it with a Scottish unicorn. Sometimes history reads like it was all done to Wales when in reality Welsh people, in proportion to their small population size, were just as important in the history of the UK as the other three nations.

Images of Wales

I've changed the image gallery to make use of Wikipedia's 'gallery' template, which seems to be less intrusive for the overall feel of the page. I've also added some photos of important Welsh institutions. If you don't like the changes, feel free to revert back to the old style, I'm not entirely convinced of the change myself! Twrist 23:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Province??

Wales is a country and nation under english occupation, the same being with scotland and n ireland.

I can rest assure everyone here that Wales is not a province. Wales is a country, the first country to unite with England as a matter of fact to form the United Kingdom. Maybe before 1955 Wales was a province of England, but not anymore. The words "Provincial Capital" have been removed.

Draig goch20 13:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wales is not a country. It is considered by many to be one but factually is not. It is a sovereign state and part of a country.PalX 14:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Wales is not a country (the only countries in the British Isles are the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland), and hasn't been a country for over 700 years, for that matter. It's a nation, and legally a principality, but it isn't a country.

I think we should revert your removal.

James F. (talk) 13:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but 'capital' by itself is sufficiently NPoV. After all we can have 'capitals' of counties, &c. Of course this doesn't get into the debate as to whether we need regional capitals or not, and why it should be Cardiff, but that's another debate! :) Owain 15:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats like saying that Scotland isn't a country? or England for that matter? and those countries do consider themselves "Countries". What makes it different for Wales, does it make it easier for others to walk all over us? Draig goch20 18:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well they aren't are they? The UK is the country, which consists of multiple parts. Why do people get all worked up about it anyway? Like you said it makes no real difference, it's all about perception. I'm sure some people in Catalonia or the Basque region consider those places to be separate de facto countries, but they are not de jure. Owain 18:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The situation is different, though, because, so far as I am aware, there is no particular official term to refer to the constituent parts of the UK. Catalonia is an autonomous community (and used to be, I think, a region). But there is no proper term for what England is, or what Scotland is. I'd certainly like to see some evidence that "nation" is used in any more official sense than "country." Certainly the adjective "national" is used to refer to things pertaining to the whole UK, so the UK, in addition to being a state, would appear to be a nation and a country, as well. The basic fact is, there is no good term for describing any of these places. john k 18:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went into google and it actually states something different. "the territory occupied by a nation; "he returned to the land of his birth"; "he visited several European countries" type in "define: Country". I am not arguing, I am clearing things up, we have alway's considered ourselves a "Country" and so do Welsh politicians. The UK is a Union of Countries, one a former province (Wales) and two other countries, Scotland and England. Draig goch20 18:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old Google = truth test. You may well 'consider' Wales to be a country, and that is your prerogative, but the UK is not a union of countries, it is one country. Wales has never really existed as a single unified entity, even up to the Laws in Wales Act 1543, there was 'the principality' and the Marches. Prior to the Norman invasion of Britain it was a number of separate kingdoms, as was England. The concept of Wales existing as a separate entity that joined a 'Union of countries' a la the EU is pure fiction. Owain 19:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wales is not a country. It's a common misconception, the same as believing England &c. are countries. It's simply not true. Wales is a region within the country known as the UK. As evidence, I offer the UN's list of member states:

http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html

Both of these sources include the UK as a country and neither of these sources include Wales as a country.

Now unless those claiming that Wales is a country can offer some evidence beyond "Google says" and "everybody knows", this article should be fixed so that it does not refer to Wales as a country. Jim 06:38, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. Nobody disagrees with you that Wales, like the other parts of the UK, isn't a sovereign state. The problem is simply with the semantics of the word "country." We're not trying to imply that Wales is an independent country; but many people use the word "country" in another sense which does not require full legal independence. Doops | talk 06:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. This is a semantic issue and 'country' is just a rather vague term. Compare the word 'Britain'. It has no official status. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, but not Great Britain; whether or not it's part of 'Britain' depends what you mean by the word - and there's no right or wrong about it. In the same way, Wales is a nation and a principality, but not a sovereign nation (or state). There's no right or wrong about calling it a country, however, because the word 'country' is not defined precisely enough. If England, Scotland, (or indeed the Basque Country) are countries, then so is Wales. If they're not, then Wales isn't either. But it's not a matter of right or wrong. Gareth 19:12 26 April 2006

---

WALES IS A COUNRTY
ENGLAND IS A COUNTRY
SCOTLAND IS A COUNTRY
NORTHERN IRELAND IS THE ONLY PROVINCE IN THE UK

The great Cymraeg rebellion overthrough the english oppressors and reclaimed our title as a country! people seem to be missing the fact that when asked in the UK what your ethnic origin is you can selet welsh, scottish, english and irish. Why call the United Kingdom united if its all one country? shouldn't it just be "kingdom"? North and south Wales are provinces of Wales, the welsh language is very different in the north of wales.

I agree Cymru is not a currently an indepedent country but then neither is Scotland or England, they are all ruled from a Westminister government that has elected represantatives from all of the countries of the UK. The UK is not a country but a Union of Countries. The Commonwealth Games are happening now and unless I am greatly, greatly mistaken Scotland, England and Wales are all taking part as diferent countries.--Rhydd Meddwl 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a nerve been touched here, I am shocked that these people aren't calling England a country. The three nations of the United Kingdom, as the Prime Minsters site suggests are "Three countries in one". There would be no need for devolution if Wales and Scotland were not countries, just not sovereign countries. I will search for where I found this. Draig goch20 19:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of poorly informed people out there. Please learn the difference between a State, a Country and a Nation before commenting on them. If you are really on the ball you might like to have a go at Ethnic group as well. In summary:

• State: A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern a society, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. Following Max Weber's influential definition, a state has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence'. Hence the state includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.
• Nation: One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals are the members of the "nation" and are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent.
• Country: In political geography and international politics a country is a geographical territory. It is used casually in the sense of both the concept of nation (a cultural entity; see below) and state (a political entity). Some definitions tend to place it as meaning only state, though general use is wider than this.
  

So do we get it? A state is a legal entity recognised as such internationally, a nation is a group of people who share a common identity and a country is a geographical region, either that of a state or that of a nation. So Wales is a nation and is also a country, it is not a State, but if it ever got independence it would be a nation-state, something the United Kingdom is not.

Alun 05:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the Royal Assent of the Government of Wales Act 2006 Wales now has a legal personality seperate to that of the UK e.g. Her Majesty in Right of Wales. This has some repercussions on this debate. From now on there will be truely Welsh laws signed by the Queen specifically as head of state of Wales rather than the UK. The advice to sign them will be given by Welsh Ministers not UK ministers although the UK government will be able to quosh those laws until a referendum of the Welsh people says otherwise. But from now on Wales is a part of the UK because it chooses to, it has the legal identity now to leave if a referendum said so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.102.96 (talk • contribs)

This makes no difference. In the unlikely event of an independence referendum, a 'yes' result would result in a separate legal entity in any case. Owain (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)