Talk:Britannia

message: Off topic trolling removed .. dave souza, talk 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple. Fosnez 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: I removed the image of Britannia and Uncle Sam holding arms, because A) its not revelent and representative of just Britannia, B) its a piece of political propaganda. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it's relevent as an example of how Britannia has been used in propaganda/politics? --Kurtle (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncle Sam propaganda poster

message: Why isnt there a seperate page on the godess Britannia? --Camaeron (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Godess

message: The image :File:50PREVISEDBRITANNIA.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:50PREVISEDBRITANNIA.jpg

message: Could something be said about Rule Britannia at the Last night of the proms here? Flosssock1 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last night of the proms in the section 'Modern associations' 

message: This has puzzled me for years, but I'm going to test the water here....
Surely the Roman province of Britannia and Britannia as a national personification are two completely different subjects. Wouldn't it be more proper to split these into two articles? The nearest comparison I can think of is having a shared article for Mars and Mars (mythology). --Jza84 |  Talk   00:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no objection, I'd like to split this article accordingly. --Jza84 |  Talk   13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: This article is about the personification. We already have an article about the province, which is linked to in the very first sentence (Britannia (Roman province) directs to Roman Britain). The information here on Roman and Medieval usage is to provide background and context to the imagery of Britannia as an emblem. In other words, there's no need for a split because it already exists. Perhaps some editing is required to clarify the scope of the topic. Paul B (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's quite right (and I've tried to rewrite the intro to more clearly summarize what the article actually discusses.) It really discusses Britannia as a designation for Britain; the personification is only one element of that. The term "Britannia" long predates the Roman conquest, and, much later, both the term and the goddess were revived as a kind of romantic national symbol. Similarly we have articles for both Gaul and Roman Gaul. We already articles on Britannia and Roman Britannia; I could see the grounds for having a distinct article for Britannia (personification) or Britannia (symbolism), but the article titled Britannia ought to discuss the designation.--Cúchullain t/c 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewrite of the lead, coupled with a new hat note does actually seem to clear this up nicely. --Jza84 |  Talk   17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's a more precise formulation of the topic, and a clearer articluation of the article's scope. Paul B (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I searched :commons:Category:Ancient Roman coins and :commons:Category:Coins of Hadrianus for an example coin depicting Britannia, but I could not find any with a clear inscription. The one at the right looks similar but it is described as "Roma seated left on cuirass and leaning on shield, holding Victory and cornucopia, right foot on helmet, left on rock." See also Roma (mythology) and Column of Antoninus Pius. Could either serve in the article? -84user (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman period 

message: Considering the Romans named the province after the island, shouldn't the island be listed first? Although the province was called Britannia, I'm sure the Romans weren't trying to suggests that the island was named something else, but instead naming there province after the entity in which it was located. Rob (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Britain and Great Britain 

message: I do not see the difference here. It seems like both articles are referring to the same geographical, political, and historical entity. I may be wrong here, as I am an American and I'm not well versed in British or Roman history, but these look the same.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Roman Britain]] 

message: I need more qualifications about the advent of picture 41.222.177.242 (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The advent of picture 

message: The text says "Pretannia, a rendering of the indigenous name for the Pretani people". OK this is attributed to Snyder, but I don't believe this. Where did these Pretani people live? They were not mentioned by Ptolemy just 50 years later.... The peoples even of England were a hotchpotch bunch each with their own tribal names, but most of them were not particularly indigenous. And anyway how long do you have to be somewhere before you count as "indigenous"? I say there was no such thing as an "Ancient Briton" before the arrival of the Romans. Freuchie (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek and Roman Periods