Talk:England and Wales

message: Just so anyone under any other impression can be aware that the England and Wales are still a single  entity in the judicial system
* (Law society of England and Wales)
* (Law Comission for England and Wales) (The Commission's offices are in London)
* (The Bar council) offices in - London
Average Earthman 17:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Law societies

message: Erm.. if England and Wales is a state, and Scotland and Northern and Ireland are separate states, then what is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
195.93.21.71 5 January 2006 21:50 (UTC)
The UK is a composite state in Public International Law terms, i.e. the whole is recognised as the nation for some international purposes, but it is divided into constitutent law areas also somewhat confusingly called states. This distinction gives one a British nationality and a domicile in one of the states, and that unique law defines your status and capacities wherever you may travel in the world.  David91 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that most would argue that Scotland and Wales are not states, since they are not sovereign- ie the individual governments of those territories do not have supreme authority. NI may be an exception, since I believe that (assuming,  constitutionally speaking, that nominal supreme power lies with Brenda) her position as monarch of NI is separate from her position as Queen of the UK. The UK is a state; NI may be a state, Scotland, England and Wales (I suspect) are not states (assuming Wales is included in the United Kingdom in the first place!). I don't know about Man, the Channel Islands etc; they may be different. All very confusing. There are numerous experts on constitutional law in the UK (I am not one) on Wikipedia who may be able to clarify this, if you feel it's an important issue. Of course, if you can find an objective, reliable source that explicitly defines each of the home nations as separate states under international law, then put it back in! All the best, Badgerpatrol 03:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is ages late, but I just wanted to chime in and correct a misconception in the above paragraph that was not discussed later.  The Queen's position in Northern Ireland is not separate from her position in the UK, because Northern Ireland is part of the UK.  While Northern Ireland is separate legal entity just as Scotland is because it has a separate legal system, the Queen is the head of state of the single kingdom known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  The "and" there should not be taken to mean that from a legal standpoint Great Britain and Northern Ireland are separate; that's why it's "United Kingdom of" and not "Kingdoms of". --Jfruh (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not something you can argue about. We are simply stating the law as it currently stands. The criterion is not, nor has it ever been, a question of sovereignty. This is a simple Conflict of Laws issue and it is not at all confusing to lawyers. I regret that lay people do get confused because of the multiple uses of words like "state". This is understandable. But I can assure you that the statement is completely correct in legal terms. Sadly, you are adding you own personal opinion on the page. I have placed a more complete explanation on English law. David91 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hallo David- I am not stating my personal opinion on this page- quite the opposite in fact! Please point to a reliable source stating independently that the home nations are separate states under international law. Badgerpatrol 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: S'OK. I just happened to be passing. You will find it useful to read my page on states for these purposes. And also please note that there are two types of international law. I have edited your last edit to avoid confusion. Public International Law deals with the relationship between de jure states in the sense that you mean.  Private International Law does treat constituent law elements as separate states. David91 03:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 'England and Wales are legally one entity'. This is only correct in respect of the legal system. That is, there is no longer a legal system in Wales separate to that of England. There is no political entity known as England and Wales. As for what the state will be called once Scotland achieves independence - I hope they will go for the honest approach this time and name it in the same terms as they think of it, either as Greater England, or as the English Empire. Dai caregos (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on what the Irish (NI and ROI) do, maybe Avalonia would be appropriate... Wardog (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the UK?

message: Quoth the article:
This was later repealed in 1967 and current laws use "England and Wales" as a single entity.
Does this mean that it is now possible for Parliament to pass laws only for England or only for Wales, or to devolve law-making powers to the Welsh Assembly? --Jfruh (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always been possible for Parliament to do that, and it already does. Owain (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I guess then I don't understand what it means for England and Wales to be a single legal entity separate from, say, Scotland. --Jfruh (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are separate court systems. See Scots law and English law. Owain (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of separate laws? 

message: Quoth the end of the article:
The Government of Wales Act 2006 created new powers for the National Assembly for Wales as of May 2007 including the ability to make laws to be called Welsh Assembly Measures. Once these start to be made, and as Westminster responds with more England only laws, it is widely expected that the concept of England and Wales as a single legal entity will start to weaken.
Now, everything I know about this subject comes from following the discussion about this page, but that last bit isn't true, right?  I mean, there alredy are some laws that only apply to England and some that only apply to Wales, and so it the larger scheme of things it doesn't matter whether those laws are passed by the UK Parliament or the Welsh Assembly -- the point is that a single court system covers both England and Wales, and nothing about the Govt. of Wales Act 2006 will change that, right? --Jfruh (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly certain you are right, but IANAL. —Nightstallion (?) 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End o' article speculation 

message: Every single item on this page is already in the article on Wales (and treated with more depth).  The article serves no value —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article is pointless. Iammadeofjelly (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that this article should actually replace the seperate articles of England, Wales.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.101.33 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion 

message: The football sentence needs adjusting. Don't the Welsh teams play in the English football league. ie Cardiff and Swansea? I do not know what the actual situation is though MortimerCat 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wrexham. They are also 3 Welsh teams in the English non-league football system. Paul-L 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's written now, it refers to the England and Wales international teams, which are distinct. Not sure if you are referring to a previous version? Badgerpatrol 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not all the welsh teams play in the English league, Wales has it's own league system as well, it's just not as rich. All of the welsh teams compete in the FA Wales Cup, regardless of whether they play in England or Wales.Iammadeofjelly (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not correct.  Welsh clubs who play in the English leagues are barred from competing in the Welsh Cup since 1995, but from 1997-2008 in a bid to screen matches involving the larger clubs, BBC  Wales have sponsored the FAW Premier Cup.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyswynne (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football 

message: Wales being a Principality has no effect on Wales being a Country. It is a common mistake to believe that a Principality is some lesser type of country. There are examples of places that are a Principality, a Country, a Nation and a state (Monaco being the first to mind). The line that says that Wales is a Principality and not a country is incorrect. I will delete it ina week unless anyone gives good reason not to - September 18th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.125.87 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 18 September 2007
: I fully agree with this --Snowded 01:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed removal of content

message: The Principality of Wales, just a silly title that revealed that at one time Wales was governed by different sovereign princes does not make Wales less of a country than Leichtenstein or Monaco, but this stupid idea that a Principality is not a country is a false statement if there ever was one. It's like saying a Duchy is not a country because it's not a Kingdom, I'd like to see how the people of Luxembourg would react to that.
Wales is a country, Wales is in union with England legally, but still holds a distinct country like status alongside England (just that Wales is not sovereign, there's a difference), which is why a National Assembly and not a Regional Assembly exists. This myth that a principality can't make a country is just that, a Myth!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.221.164 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very stupid argument 

message: Two points. For the first I'd just like clarification - in what sense is 'England and Wales ... a political ... unit with the United Kingdom'? (By the way, shouldn't that read '... within the United Kingdom').
The second is that in the second paragraph it states that 'England and Wales were first administered as a single unit by the Romans' This isn't possible, as neither England nor Wales existed at the time the Romans were in Britain. England, because the English didn't arrive in Britain until well after the Romans left in the year 410. And Wales, because the word Welsh (i.e. the Germanic/Saxon term meaning foreigner) wouldn't have been used, as the people of Britain were called British by the Romans. I'm happy to make amendments. But I'd prefer agreement before any changes are made. :) (Dai caregos (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the second point, the History of Wales article puts it much better: "Up to and during the Roman occupation of Britain, Wales was not a separate country; all the native inhabitants of Roman Britain spoke Brythonic languages (a sub-family of the Celtic languages) and were regarded as Britons (or Brythons)."Cop 663 (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, Cop 663. Go for it. Dai caregos (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Romans - in England & Wales! 

message: The article includes the line :
"During the evolution of the United Kingdom, Wales has been considered a principality, the Principality of Wales, rather than an incorporated country, despite constituting a separate country ethnically and culturally."
The Principality was not the whole of Wales, but about two thirds of it, mainly in the north.
It was only the Principality of Wales that was made part of the Kingdom of England by the Statute of Rhuddlan, enacted on 3 March 1284.
These territories did not include a substantial swathe of land from Pembrokeshire through south Wales to the Welsh Borders which was largely in the hands of the Marcher Lords and were not subject to English law.
Henry VIII annexed this land with the Laws in Wales Act 1535, which integrated the whole of Wales directly into the English legal system and the "Lordships Marchers within the said Country or Dominion of Wales" were allocated to existing and new shires.
Notice that the act called Wales "the said country"
Debate please.  Jongleur100 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have had the country debate to many times for me to what to repeat it.  The above is in the main accurate, but it was not called a Principality per se so the first paragraph should go and be replaced by something better phrased.  I would think (i) Stature of incorporated remaining parts of Wales (descriptions, ref. Treaty of Montgomery), (ii) Laws in Wales act as at present (iii) note that Wales was considered part of the Kingdom of England at the time of the acts of Union in Scotland and Ireland and the reflection of that in the flag etc.  --Snowded (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that people confuse the 'Principality' with the 'country' of Wales. After Henry annexed the Marches the country ceased being a Principality, but was still a 'country', even though it was legally intergrated into England.  Jongleur100 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Principality is still in use (maybe more than pre Henry VIII) but in the context of wales it is synonymous with country - see agreed wording on Countries of the United Kingdom.   It needs rewording though  --Snowded (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Belatedly noticed this discussion.  Jongleur100 is quite right, so I have had a go at rewording the relevant sentence.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought those changes were a real improvement - thanks --Snowded TALK 10:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principality of Wales 

message: Not sure I agree that London has been the capital of the UK since Roman times. It could only have been the capital of the UK since the UK was formed and hasn't even been the capital of Britannia or England since Roman times. Might be best to leave it out completely as E & W are only a legal entity i.e they share many of the same laws, rather than a political entity. Would you mind having a rethink? Cheers. Daicaregos (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I was reacting to the previous edit with implied it had been capital since the dawn of time.  Will correct  --Snowded TALK 22:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Times 

message: Sorry about that, but it's one way to gain people's attention! I presume that a fair proportion of those contributing to this talk page will be either English or Welsh. According to an article recently created, we live in South Britain (not southern Britain) and we "may correctly be termed South Britons". May we, indeed? I'm not sure which planet the contributor lives on but it certainly does not include modern Wales, or England. If anybody has views on this misleading article (I've changed the wording of the intro, although I suspect it will be reverted again, so you may need to check the History for the original text), which in my humble opinion reflects the POV of a tiny minority - if indeed that minority even exists in sufficient numbers even to be called that - perhaps they might like to have a look at it and its talk page? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just mischief making I think.  I've proposed it be merged into England and Wales, so that a passing reference can be made there if at all.  In the meantime an eye needs to be kept on the page's content so that it doesn't sow confusion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Id support the merge / redirect to this page, that "south Britain" page offers no value or use.  BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greetings Fellow South Britons! 

message: On 13 November 2014 Gareth Griffith-Jones reverted 2 edits by Nenniu with the comment Unsourced nonsense reverted. (TW). I think Gareth Griffith-Jones's comment is unwarranted. The reverted text was:
The nonsense comment may have arisen from the wikilink to Doom Book. However, if you look at Doom book the contribution makes sense. It is unfortunate to have different articles titled Doom Book and Doom book; I'll look into renaming one of them. Nunniu's contribution is useful, we should and reinstate at least some of it. The text is sourced by a reference in the Doom book article, but as I don't have access to the book cited there I won't repeat the citation here. However, the influence of Charlemagne's legal systems on the Doom book is not mentioned in Doom book or in Alfred the Great#Legal reform, so we should not mention this here. If there is a reliable source for Charlemagne's influence then please update all relevant articles. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored some of Nenniu's text  Partly done: Verbcatcher (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you,  for the explanation and for your subsequent additions. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  English law 

message: Recognition of Welsh law
(1) There is a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers.
(2) The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to recognise the ability of the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers to make law forming part of the law of England and Wales.
From the Wales Bill 2016 (page 6). Sumorsǣte (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales Bill 2016