This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-10. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Just so anyone under any other impression can be aware that the England and Wales are still a single entity in the judicial system
Average Earthman 17:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"The England and Wales team (often abbreviated simply as England)" - has anyone ever called the cricket team anything but plain "England"? The Board officially mentions Wales, yes, but not the team. 81.158.205.33 30 June 2005 13:46 (UTC)
No, no one's ever called it the England and Wales team, because it's not. It's the England & Wales Cricket Board (who look after cricket at all levels not just international) but the team is actually just England that is fielded. It's not the England and Wales team. Wales has no team, but Welsh players may join the England team. According the the ECB website: http://www.ecb.co.uk/fans/q-and-a/185,185,QA.html : "It's always been the England team that take the field right back to the first Test in 1887. Welsh players are accepted as playing for England as Wales has no international side as recognised by ICC." So I'm going to modify that paragraph. In fact, it might as well be removed. 193.130.85.60 10 March 2006 14:51 (UTC)
PS- 'There is, however, a Wales team that plays in some domestic competitions...'- is there an officially recognised Wales representative team? I have never heard of it, although I'm not a mad-keen cricket fan. The only Welsh domestic team I can name OTTOM head is Glamorgan. They are A welsh cricket team, but not THE Welsh cricket team. Badgerpatrol 00:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Historically and in common use the team is called "England" but since last summer there are a few instances of it being referred to as as England and Wales, so it's possible that this may pass into common usage in the future. There is also a "Welsh Cricket Association" (WCA) which is the Governing Body of Welsh Amateur Cricket, so the other possibility is of Wales developing a recognised international team. Indeed their constitution has as an aim: "(I) To arrange international matches, competitions and other fixtures as may from time to time be deemed advisable." See http://www.welshcricket.org/constitution.htm -- Aroberts 08:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
wales is a principality yet there is no mention of that.or the sheep shagging.
Yeah very 'funny' and quite racist! Some people need to grow up! Amlder20 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is a consequence all this that if Scotland were to leave the UK, the resulting country would be called "United Kingdom of England and Wales and Northern Ireland", rather than "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" given that England and Wales are legally one entity? Duncan McAlister 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I want to know what the resulting state would be called if Scotland seceeded from the UK, "United Kingdom of England and Wales and Northern Ireland" doesn't sound right does it? 90.193.39.149 ( talk) 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Parliament can pass laws for the Uk or for England and Wales, or for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland seperately. The Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly can also pass laws for their respective countries. The Welsh Assembly will be able to make 'Measures' which the Queen will make law from May 2007. All very confusing!
I am interested, it is possible for Wales to have it's own laws and remain part of the England and Wales legal system? Don't some parts of English law apply to Scotland e.g. Terrorism acts and broadcasting laws? Do you believe we will have our own Court System for Wales one day? Amlder20 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The Parliament can pass laws only for even numbered houses on Smith Street, Smithton, if it wants to, and it can give them their own parliament to devolve its powers to as well. I don't see what all the confusion is about, except people assuming that court systems, laws and law-making institutions are always geographically contiguous. They don't have to be and have not been in Britain since the first Act of Union with Scotland. GSTQ 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The act of union with Scotland was not the first. Amlder20 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
You are right..
The courts of England & Wales will continue to interpret laws of The United Kingdom Parliament whether they apply to England alone, or to England and Wales, or to Wales alone.
The courts of England & Wales will also continue to interpret measures passed by the Welsh Assembly which apply to Wales alone.
Mossley10 17:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think whats meant by this was, there will be two laws in England and Wales, where Welsh Law (Measures) will be laws on Education, Health etc, whilst English law in Wales will be courts and legal procedures. Obviously areas that are not controlled by the Welsh assembly will be controlled by English law. It just means that English law still applies, but there will be a seperate Law in Wales also. It also depends on what the writer means, the criminal laws etc or just education, health, Welsh Language etc. Amlder20 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in the GoW2006m itself to split England and Wales as two jurisdictions, but it is seen by many, if not most, as the logical conclusion. Already the new Welsh Government has agreed to look at the possibility of devolving criminal justice to Wales. That would be the certain death knell of "England and Wales" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.125.87 ( talk) 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
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
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)
Wales is a principality; that does not demerit its status as a country. It is a significant part of our country's past - both as a separate entity and as a part of the United Kingdom. The "Great Prince", Llewelyn ap Iorwerth was both a powerful force in Wales and a major influence on the other side of Offa's Dyke, having allegedly influenced the King to create Magna Carta. Those who use it as a disparaging term have not grasped its historical or cultural importance. I'm grateful that it is a title in the British monarchy and that the Prince of Wales has made a concerted effort to learn about Welsh culture and to give several speeches in the Welsh language. Whether one is a monarchist or not, one would have to acknowledge that there has been a definite change over the last century - prior to the twentieth century, the Prince of Wales would rarely visit the nation. Today, the establishment realises that it needs to recognise Wales as being a vital part of the Union and a great contributor to British culture. I think it would be best to remove the reference to the Principality having 'no constitutional basis' - this is sheer nonsense, and the reference cited does not support the statement (p. 661 does contain an entry on the Principality, but it does not refer to the Principality having no constitutional basis). As with so many other institutions in British life, they do not have to be in the statute books to be considered a common custom - such as the UK national anthem. The UK has no official constitution to begin with, so to suggest that the Principality has no constitutional basis is a non-statement, as you would have to say the same thing about the entire nation. I also despise that foolish myth that Wales is not a country - it has the same recognition as England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.191.50 ( talk) 04:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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)).
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)
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)
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)
I know we can have some flexibility around where they are used, and it doesn't have to mean we are asserting that "England & Wales" is a country per se, but the recent addition of a country infobox seems misleading and confusing to me. As the opening sentence says, it is about a jurisdiction with a common legal system, which happens to comprise two out of the four countries/parts of the current UK, not an acknowledged geopolitical entity of any sort in its own right. N-HH talk/ edits 17:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course, England and Wales used to be a country, which is more than can be said for Northern Ireland. And perhaps the question will need to be reviewed before too long. Moonraker ( talk) 07:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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:
while English Law was initially codified by Alfred the Great in his ' Legal Code' of 893 and heavily influenced by continental systems under Charlemagne.
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-10. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Just so anyone under any other impression can be aware that the England and Wales are still a single entity in the judicial system
Average Earthman 17:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"The England and Wales team (often abbreviated simply as England)" - has anyone ever called the cricket team anything but plain "England"? The Board officially mentions Wales, yes, but not the team. 81.158.205.33 30 June 2005 13:46 (UTC)
No, no one's ever called it the England and Wales team, because it's not. It's the England & Wales Cricket Board (who look after cricket at all levels not just international) but the team is actually just England that is fielded. It's not the England and Wales team. Wales has no team, but Welsh players may join the England team. According the the ECB website: http://www.ecb.co.uk/fans/q-and-a/185,185,QA.html : "It's always been the England team that take the field right back to the first Test in 1887. Welsh players are accepted as playing for England as Wales has no international side as recognised by ICC." So I'm going to modify that paragraph. In fact, it might as well be removed. 193.130.85.60 10 March 2006 14:51 (UTC)
PS- 'There is, however, a Wales team that plays in some domestic competitions...'- is there an officially recognised Wales representative team? I have never heard of it, although I'm not a mad-keen cricket fan. The only Welsh domestic team I can name OTTOM head is Glamorgan. They are A welsh cricket team, but not THE Welsh cricket team. Badgerpatrol 00:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Historically and in common use the team is called "England" but since last summer there are a few instances of it being referred to as as England and Wales, so it's possible that this may pass into common usage in the future. There is also a "Welsh Cricket Association" (WCA) which is the Governing Body of Welsh Amateur Cricket, so the other possibility is of Wales developing a recognised international team. Indeed their constitution has as an aim: "(I) To arrange international matches, competitions and other fixtures as may from time to time be deemed advisable." See http://www.welshcricket.org/constitution.htm -- Aroberts 08:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
wales is a principality yet there is no mention of that.or the sheep shagging.
Yeah very 'funny' and quite racist! Some people need to grow up! Amlder20 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is a consequence all this that if Scotland were to leave the UK, the resulting country would be called "United Kingdom of England and Wales and Northern Ireland", rather than "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" given that England and Wales are legally one entity? Duncan McAlister 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I want to know what the resulting state would be called if Scotland seceeded from the UK, "United Kingdom of England and Wales and Northern Ireland" doesn't sound right does it? 90.193.39.149 ( talk) 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Parliament can pass laws for the Uk or for England and Wales, or for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland seperately. The Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly can also pass laws for their respective countries. The Welsh Assembly will be able to make 'Measures' which the Queen will make law from May 2007. All very confusing!
I am interested, it is possible for Wales to have it's own laws and remain part of the England and Wales legal system? Don't some parts of English law apply to Scotland e.g. Terrorism acts and broadcasting laws? Do you believe we will have our own Court System for Wales one day? Amlder20 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The Parliament can pass laws only for even numbered houses on Smith Street, Smithton, if it wants to, and it can give them their own parliament to devolve its powers to as well. I don't see what all the confusion is about, except people assuming that court systems, laws and law-making institutions are always geographically contiguous. They don't have to be and have not been in Britain since the first Act of Union with Scotland. GSTQ 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The act of union with Scotland was not the first. Amlder20 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
You are right..
The courts of England & Wales will continue to interpret laws of The United Kingdom Parliament whether they apply to England alone, or to England and Wales, or to Wales alone.
The courts of England & Wales will also continue to interpret measures passed by the Welsh Assembly which apply to Wales alone.
Mossley10 17:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think whats meant by this was, there will be two laws in England and Wales, where Welsh Law (Measures) will be laws on Education, Health etc, whilst English law in Wales will be courts and legal procedures. Obviously areas that are not controlled by the Welsh assembly will be controlled by English law. It just means that English law still applies, but there will be a seperate Law in Wales also. It also depends on what the writer means, the criminal laws etc or just education, health, Welsh Language etc. Amlder20 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in the GoW2006m itself to split England and Wales as two jurisdictions, but it is seen by many, if not most, as the logical conclusion. Already the new Welsh Government has agreed to look at the possibility of devolving criminal justice to Wales. That would be the certain death knell of "England and Wales" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.125.87 ( talk) 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
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
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)
Wales is a principality; that does not demerit its status as a country. It is a significant part of our country's past - both as a separate entity and as a part of the United Kingdom. The "Great Prince", Llewelyn ap Iorwerth was both a powerful force in Wales and a major influence on the other side of Offa's Dyke, having allegedly influenced the King to create Magna Carta. Those who use it as a disparaging term have not grasped its historical or cultural importance. I'm grateful that it is a title in the British monarchy and that the Prince of Wales has made a concerted effort to learn about Welsh culture and to give several speeches in the Welsh language. Whether one is a monarchist or not, one would have to acknowledge that there has been a definite change over the last century - prior to the twentieth century, the Prince of Wales would rarely visit the nation. Today, the establishment realises that it needs to recognise Wales as being a vital part of the Union and a great contributor to British culture. I think it would be best to remove the reference to the Principality having 'no constitutional basis' - this is sheer nonsense, and the reference cited does not support the statement (p. 661 does contain an entry on the Principality, but it does not refer to the Principality having no constitutional basis). As with so many other institutions in British life, they do not have to be in the statute books to be considered a common custom - such as the UK national anthem. The UK has no official constitution to begin with, so to suggest that the Principality has no constitutional basis is a non-statement, as you would have to say the same thing about the entire nation. I also despise that foolish myth that Wales is not a country - it has the same recognition as England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.191.50 ( talk) 04:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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)).
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)
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)
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)
I know we can have some flexibility around where they are used, and it doesn't have to mean we are asserting that "England & Wales" is a country per se, but the recent addition of a country infobox seems misleading and confusing to me. As the opening sentence says, it is about a jurisdiction with a common legal system, which happens to comprise two out of the four countries/parts of the current UK, not an acknowledged geopolitical entity of any sort in its own right. N-HH talk/ edits 17:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course, England and Wales used to be a country, which is more than can be said for Northern Ireland. And perhaps the question will need to be reviewed before too long. Moonraker ( talk) 07:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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:
while English Law was initially codified by Alfred the Great in his ' Legal Code' of 893 and heavily influenced by continental systems under Charlemagne.
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)
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)