Talk:England/Archive 1

message: 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
See: http://www.flaginst.demon.co.uk/fiunionflag.htm
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb.html
: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--64.107.96.17 20:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: 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)
thread_title:  More flag

message: 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 ) --Kaihsu 10:03, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: As promised:  --Kaihsu 12:53, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Coat-of-arms

message: 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)
thread_title: Culture of England

message: 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 www.homestead.com/englishheathenism/ 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-English Bias Yet Again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some school histories... 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Independent Nation? 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I found it, it was the Republic of Genoa that had the same flag! Gzornenplatz 16:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Scottish certainly don't though! CHecking about the Commonwealth Games, btw, I find Land of Hope and Glory for England para 5,  & , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The government seems to think that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries: . 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: National anthem

message: WikiUser 20:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notice of request for arbitration against abuse by chrisO.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: London not the Capital

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Angles / Saxons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Demographics 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hacker?

message: 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)
replies: text: I share your opinion. Probably the best is to have these figures at estimates.
Sarcelles 08:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arms and Flag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Genetics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Symbols? 

message: 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)
thread_title: 'Engliss' French for 'England'?

message: 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%27_notice_board#England_page.2C_Scotland_page.2C_Wales_page:_National_Arms_or_UK_Arms
--Mais oui! 07:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Arms (Three Lions) or UK Arms - discussion at UK Wikipedian's 

message: Added the following link
*Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border
* Devolve England
* The Campaign for an English Parliament
* The Wessex Regionalist Party
* Mercian Regionalists
* English Constitutional Convention
* The English Democrats
* English Independence Party
* England First Party
Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?

message: 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.
to
.....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)
thread_title: Irish separatism

message: Would be grateful for some feedback discussion at the above disambig talk page.
Fourohfour 11:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[England (disambiguation)]] / [[Talk:England_(disambiguation)]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Map Misleading

message: Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564: 
Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. 
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)
replies: text: 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) 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cornubia

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Oops, it may be justified in this case. DJ Clayworth 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph on William The Conquerer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Religion again 

message: 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:
*Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Transport_in_England
--Mais oui! 11:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On-going deletion of England-related categories: [[:Category:Transport in England]]