![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
i have added this page to my favourites and am going to reference it, my main paper text at home is the times historical atlas... not an ideal ref as it is probably mostly tertiary source and only covers major events and trends but at least it is reputable.................. if anyone can do better please go ahead.. it may take afew months to ref all this stuff here but please removers be patient! 82.27.221.233 ( talk) 19:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Should this redirect to England and Wales ? Morwen 15:42, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
A couple of errors and omissions below:
1. The Union of Crowns happened in 1603, not 1601 2. The Queen is also descended from several of the Kings and Princes of Wales, as well as Brian Boru and a few other High Kings of Ireland
The post-1707 numeration of monarchs follows the Anglo-Norman model, so it is relevant that she is Queen Elizabeth II because England, Ireland and Wales had a previous queen regnant named Elizabeth - but Scotland did not.
Similarly, pre-1707 William and Mary had these numbers: She was Mary II of all three countries (i.e., Mary II, Queen of Scots; Mary II, Queen of England; and Mary II, Queen of Ireland); while he was William III, King of England; William II, King of Scots; and William I, King of Ireland. But when Queen Victoria's Uncle William came to the throne just before her, he was William IV of the United Kingdom - because the numbering picked up from the highest previous number.
So, Prince William will eventually be William V - unless he chooses a different reign name (like the Queen's father, whose first name was 'Albert', and all his friends and family called him "Bertie"; but he took the reign name "George VI").
It will be interesting to see what happens if there is ever an heir to the throne named James. Scotland had seven Kings James while England, Wales and Ireland had just the last two - both before the Acts of Union of 1707. So, would the first King James of the United Kingdom be James VIII or James III? The apparent precedent would suggest James VIII but most British constitutional experts would probably conject James III; but as the post-1714 royal family have generally avoided the name James (and 'Henry', too, until Princess Diana gave it to her second son), preferring 'George' instead, we won't have an answer any time soon.
but for any articles about scotland, q e ii herself or the royal family in general the fact of descent from scots as well could be mentioned.
perhaps for clarification title could be amended to Kingdom of England till 1707 ? please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 ( talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems people are inisting on a wildly inappropriate map being on the page. The map shows the borders of present-day England. However, from 1536 to 1707, the Kingdom included Wales. Prior to 1536, the border between the Kingdom of England, and the Welsh areas, was not the same as it was now - the border was set at the same time as the Kingdom annexed Wales. This means that the border shown in the map has never been the actual border of the Kingdom with Wales. Morwen - Talk 16:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
This article as explained in its early parts not by me presumably by early authours is about pre-1707. b4 tudors wales was a separate jurisdiction from England as a nation but was a dependant fief of the English crown, similar to a colony in the 19th century. its laws and constitution were different but the sovereign was the same, and it was the sovereignty of wales that depended on the sovereignty of england and was mostly bestowed on the crown prince of england, just as it is formally bestowed on crown prince charles today. but i believe wales was not represented in the english parliament until the tudors united the lands. then wales became fully a part of england as a nation, but this article is about a kingdom not a nation and a kingdom derives from the king, which was the same person and it was not a personal union as the principality of wales was, ever since the defeat of Llewelyn the Last by Edward I, in the gift and under the sovereignty of England. Therefore the map of the kingdom of england shown should actually show the domains of any particular king of england for the time that he reigned, as this article concerns the kingdom. an indeed in those days whilst people certainly began to identify themselves as english etc there was very often a cult of personality and loyalty to the person of the monarch. the battle cry of aguncourt as reported in shakespeare "for god, harry and merry england" shows the typical triple loyalty of people in those days. i would like to see maps of the pre-1066, pre 1280, and post 1280 kingdom, but additons of interest would concern hexham shire and cuberland, changes in the welsh marches and princes acknowledging english suzerainty and any areas of france for example which actually were under the suzerainty of the english crown rather than being as in most cases the personal domains of the king of england but subject to the suzerainty of the kings of france. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 ( talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are the quartered arms of England and France being used for this page? Throughout much of England's history, it is true, the Kings of England used the arms pictured here (or its predecessor with "France ancient", azure seme-de-lis or); but that's because they claimed the throne of France. I'm going to swap in the English arms. Doops | talk 21:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
File:J1&2,C1&2 Arms.png File:QuAn Arms.png
I'm not sure if this sentence is entirely accurate. Perhaps we should specify official or formal usage. Glennh70 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as the Scots are concerned, James IV was most definitely James I of England, but James IV of Scotland because of the numbering differences. I'm not sure if there's been any problems since the James' with the numbering, but it could be something that's an issue in the future. Therefore, it's not entirely accurate to say that the title King/Queen of England is out of use because it has a specific meaning with regard to differentiating between the royal lines north and south of the border. (I would also like to suggest that most of the previous poster's point has little to do with the actual issue and more to do with their own personal bias. William and Mary cannot be compared to Philip and Mary - the circumstances of both marriages and accessions were completely different.) Emo mz ( talk) 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole article, and dozens like it, are fundamentally flawed. They keep insisting that the English state came to an end in 1707, but nothing could be further from the truth. All that happened in that year was the annexation of Scotland, and the adoption of the name Great Britain (which had already been in use for a century). All the English institutions survived, and survive to this day. TharkunColl 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So, for that matter, did the Scottish ones, if you mean by institutions legal systems, church settlements and the like. I think it far too strong to say that Scotland was 'annexed' in 1707, which would make the Union the exact equivalent of that imposed by Cromwell. I do, however, take your point; it is nonsense to contend that England somehow ceased to exist after 1707, an argument that takes as its point of departure a very narrow and legalistic view of political facts. The simple truth is that the union of 1707-and the later union of 1801-was never a combination of equals: England for whole series of factors was bound to be the dominant partner. It was the accepted form right into the twentieth century to refer to the United Kingdom as England-even Prime Ministers like Henry Campbell Bannerman, Arthur Balfour and Ramsay MacDonald, all born in Scotland, did so. Rcpaterson 02:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"Annexed" is not only far too strong, it is also entirely incorrect and insulting to the Scots. It was a Union, not an annexation. It makes as much sense as saying Scotland annexed England in 1707 i.e. no sense at all. It is inconsequential that it wasn't a union of equals. The fact of the matter, whether people like it or not, is that England (and for that matter Scotland) is not an independent state by any definition and will remain a constituent country of the sovereign state of United Kingdom until such times as their population decide otherwise. A bit like the old Soviet Union and its constituent countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Man 68 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Subnational capacity for government did not have any chance of dissolving the Union; it was not independent but confederate. Lord Loxley 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
See below. Lord Loxley 15:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The Acts of Union 1707 (in both Scotland and England) are quite explicit: "THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN" That's it. Period. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.8.149 ( talk) 18:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe some consensus should form as to the proper coat of arms and flag which represents the entity in this article. If England continued with the Stuarts, then those emblems such as the Union flag and Stuart arms should be represented. This would cause conflict with the Kingdom of Scotland article, for them to both use them and not be the same country. If England ended with the Tudors and Scotland ended with the Stewarts, then the present symbols may remain. See Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain#1603-1707 for the background discussion on this. Lord Loxley 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
shouldnt the arms used for the article not be the ultimate arms clearly those of stewart long associated with scotland before becoming english as well but the royal arms of england which were mostly the three lions... although i believe the normans used two at first... surely it is those arms that were used longest "armigerously" that should be used? and the same for flags. as for maps there is a case for a series say 2-3 or up to 5 showing the most significant aquisitions and losses 82.27.221.233 ( talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The first national flag of England was the first Union Flag, adopted in 1606, prior to that, England did not have any national flag. The St. George’s Cross came from the Order of the Garter (whose patron was St. George), and that was used for England. Scotland already had a national flag, the Sltire of St. Andrew, so the St. George’s Cross as English was invented to fuse with the Scottish flag. The Saint George’s was originally an international religious banner of the Crusades. It was re-invented as an English national flag by fans of the England football team around 1996 as a reaction against Scotland, Northern Ireland And Wales. It is still considered the football flag as the national flag remains the Union Flag. If a flag is to be put in the infix box, it should be the first Union Flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.66.76 ( talk) 08:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
81.156.41.61 ( talk · contribs) inserted the following into the article: “The Kingdom of England was a sovereign state until the reign of Richard I, who made it a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire. During the reign of his brother John "Lackland" the Kingdom became a tribute-paying vassal of the Holy See until the fourteenth century when the Kingdom rejected the overlordship of the Holy See and re-established its sovereignty.”
This seems like WP:OR. 81.156.41.61 also inserted similar statements into the Holy Roman Empire article, but they were removed here. Because these claims are questionable and unsourced, I have removed them from the article. -- Kjetil r ( talk) 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
England was made a fief of the Holy Roman Empire as part of Richard's ransom. Richard had to basically acknowledge Henry VI as his overlord and lease back his Kingdom. See [1], Henry VI's entry in the Hutchison Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare [2]. Likewise John made England and Ireland into Papal fiefs as part of his capitulation to Innocent III in 1213 in the dispute over Langton's election as Archbishop of Canterbury see [3]. As these are quite major changes in England's status they deserve to be included in the article. 81.155.196.183 ( talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
why is there no 'Union with Scotland' and 'Flag' sections like on Kingdom of Scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.82.128 ( talk) 18:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe it's a bit misleading to have the Principality of Wales listed under states that preceded the kingdom of England. It didn't exist until 1216 and wasn't really annexed (a part of it it anyway) until the time of Edward I. Maybe I'm missing something but I was thinking of removing it but wanted to check first. 90.233.167.244 ( talk) 09:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
England was founded when Egbert took over all the thrones of the little Kingdoms. Before this, it wasn't England. It's no use talking about Roman times, this was before a Kingdom was formed. 2.97.165.193 ( talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Westminster is in London, but not the city of London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 10:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing the Coat of Arms used between 1558–1603 is shown because this was before the Union of the crowns however the Kingdom did continue to exist up until 1707 therefore shouldn't the 1702-1707 Coat of Arms be used instead? Regards, Rob ( talk) 20:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Ireland was never a Royal Colony or Crown Colony. I've noticed that the Kingdom of England is often described as covering both Southern Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain is often described as covering both Great Britain and Ireland. Is it possible that Ireland was part of the Kingdom of England/Great Britain, rather then a possession? Also, the term 'kingdom' was originally used to describe any region with a king, thus Ireland could be called the 'kingdom of Ireland', even if it was only a constituent region of the Kingdom of England/Great Britain. Regards, Rob ( talk) 21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Although the common name of this state today is the Kingdom of England, historically I would assume the official name was in fact 'England', likewise with Canada today, which is a kingdom, however is not referred to as the 'Kingdom of Canada'. As currently the successor to the state was officially called 'Great Britain', I think we can assume this state is called 'England' unless evidence is provided suggesting otherwise. If this is uncontroversial, I will add 'England' to the opening sentence as with other articles which official name is listed as well as there common name. Regards, Rob ( talk) 15:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Westminster is a London borough not an independent city. Why is the borough listed and London as England's capitol?? 72.204.66.161 ( talk) 03:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This source describes Westminster as being part of London, and that the town developed separate political and commercial centres.
This source describes Westminster as being part of London, and that the metropolitan became the capital of England in the 12th century.
This source states that Westminster became the administrative centre in the 12th century.
I think both can be stated as '
City of London' and '
Westminster', or simply '
London' with a ref tag clarifying that Westminster is part of the 'London', and that the metropolitan effectively had two centres.
Regards,
Rob (
talk)
22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The kingdom of the English was declared in 886, when Alfred the Great declared himself King of the English, at a time when the English regions were divided between his kingdom, and the Danelaw. From 910, the kingdom of the English invaded the Danelaw in a series offensives, until 927 when all of the English regions formed part of the unified English kingdom. Rather then defining the formation of the Kingdom of England as 927, instead I think we should state early 10th century, as the kingdom was established gradually, not on a specific date. Thoughts? Regards, Rob ( talk) 18:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the long-standing Saint George cross since I doubt it was used in primacy. The nearest to what we today call a national flag is probably the Royal Banner.
The Royal Banner of the British monarch used by naval and land forces in 1700 was:
The part of the Royal Banner that represents England was:
And the part that excludes England's monarch's claim to the French throne was:
And there's also the Saint George cross, which was used by the English naval forces until 1606, and land forces until 1707:
And the Union Flag used by the English naval forces from 1606 to 1707:
Thoughts? Rob ( talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Rob, the damage you have done to articles concerning England and it's heraldry is simply appalling. Once again I will be going through the highest channels of complaint concerning your conduct as, thanks to your efforts, I am not aware of a single article on England which displays any of our national symbols. - H ( talk) 17:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
We can rule out the union flag as primary sources don't support the claim that it was used by naval forces. [1] [2] Rob ( talk | contribs) 10:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't find late 17th century primary sources showing land forces. English Civil War sources are useless because the symbols were used to show allegiance, with Royalists using the Royal Banner, and Cromwell's forces using the St George cross. It's quite possible the St George cross was used more often after the English Civil War because of the conflict. Rob ( talk | contribs) 11:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I've solved the flag dilemna, If you disagree than please leave a {{talkback}} message on my talk page. Duonaut ( talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
An IP editor has repeatedly included edits in the first paragraph to imply that modern-day England does not include Cornwall. This is false, see, e.g., Cornwall. Also, per WP:LEDE, this does not belong in the first paragraph, as the rest of this article does not mention Cornwall at all. I don't have a stake in the Cornish independence movement, one way or the other. Until that is successful, modern-day England does include Cornwall. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 17:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the article in the Independent does not say that the Cornwall is no longer part of England, politically. It says that being Cornish is considered a minority group. You have a habit of citing articles then departing from the text. If you really think that Cornwall is not part of "modern-day" England, maybe you should start with the Cornwall article, which says "Cornwall... is a ceremonial county and unitary authority area of England." Logical Cowboy ( talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I altered the opening paragraph to read "the kingdom included modern-day England, Wales (from the sixteenth century) and for a brief period in the 15th century the Southern Uplands of Scotland. " It's been reverted on the grounds that "before the sixteenth century, much of Wales was part of England." Now, great, marvellous, that's how Wikipedia works. Good that people are reverting things! Just explaining why I am bringing it to the talk page.
The paragraph of this article headed "Tudors and Stuarts" states that Wales was annexed to the Kingdom of England under the Laws in Wales acts in the sixteenth century. Of course, Welsh leaders from Hywel Dda onwards have pledged loyalty to English kings, been defeated by them in battle, the authority of the King of England to make laws in Wales has been accepted from long before the sixteenth century- but this is not the same thing as being part of the Kingdom of England. I would suggest that "from the sixteenth century" would be a reasonable and relevant thing to put in the paragraph.
Actually, as I say, simply something to be put in the leader as well as later on the article, as otherwise it implies that Wales was part of the Kingdom of England from the tenth century.
I won't change anything without input, so any thoughts anyone? Ceiniog ( talk) 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Changes made again! Ceiniog ( talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Under the section titled "Tudors and Stuarts", it states that "Wales now ceased to be a personal fiefdom divided between the Prince of Wales and the Earl of March".
Who on earth is the "Earl of March" in relation to Wales? This seems to be nonsense. I've been asking in talk pages before altering text, and as the first time I altered text before asking it was reverted on this article I'll put it up before altering. The principality was certainly the personal fiefdom of the Prince of Wales, the rest of Wales was divided up between different people, surely? Does anyone have any knowledge or references for this "Earl of March"? I could well be completely ignorant - indeed, I hope I am, considering this is a main reference source for people! - so just asking about the thing. Ceiniog ( talk) 02:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed this from the lead:
This is doubtful in two respects, (a) is the English channel really part of "the Atlantic Ocean" and (b) is this supposed to state a historical truth valid for the duration of the article's scope, 10th to 17th centuries? In that case, what about Wales before 1280?
Also, are we talking about "England" or about "the territory controlled by the kings of England"? If the latter, what about the Pale of Calais, (and indeed all of the Angevin Empire)? -- dab (𒁳) 08:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not as simple as "The fleurs-de-lis represent France and the lions represent England" See the arms during King Henry VI reign:
Why is the the fleurs-de-lis still part of the English half during the personal union with France?
The quartered arms were used to represent the state. Furthur more, the claim was tied to the state/the crown in right of England, not the monarch. Hence why the claim remained even when the house changed (eg Tudors to Stuarts). When the French kingdom ceased to exist, the arms were removed, however they were not removed when England and France were in personal union. So it isn't as simple as the fleurs-de-lis represented the crown's claim to France.
Rob984 (
talk)
17:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
In every personal union since the 14th century, the English state was represented by the quartered arms:
.
The quartered version of the arms was used to represent the state:
Is there any sources to show the three lions alone being used to represent the English state after the 14th century?
I don't agree with showing a symbol which hasn't been used since the 14th century.
Rob984 (
talk)
17:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I am referring both to your past removals and the most recent one, highlighted above by other users. And please don't make out as though I am solely here to insult you, I can assure you that you are not that important to me. English history and heraldry however is - H ( talk) 20:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
“ | The arms of the Kings of England retained the form assumed by Richard Coeur de Lion down to 1340, when Edward III quartered the arms of France (ancient), Azure semy of Fleurs de lis Or as part of his claim to the French throne, a claim which caused the outbreak of the Hundred Years War. At some time in the first decade of the fifteenth century (the exact date is not clear) the French quartering in the Royal Arms was altered to France (modern), Azure three Fleurs de lis Or in order to bring it into line with current French practice. The new arms of France quartered with England appear on Henry IV's second Great Seal which came into use during November 1406, though it is possible that the change had occurred a year or so before that. Froissart records that Edward III quartered the French arms at the insistence of his Flemish allies, who made it a condition of their support for his claim to the French throne. The reason was that they were bound by a pledge of two million florins to the Pope not to make war against the legitimate King of France. At a Council in Brussels they told Edward that if he bore the arms of France (to which he was lawfully entitled in right of his mother), They would regard him as the rightful King of France and this would release them from the consequences of their pledge if they fought for him. The quartered coat thus became the arms of England, not of England France together. The gold and silver coins minted after Henry VI was crowned King of France in Paris depict two escutcheons, one containing the French arms only and the other the quartered arms of EngIand; the point being that the quartered arms were not those of France and England but of England only. | ” |
(Woodcock, Page 188).
“ | ...the Arms of England and the quarterings borne with it are Arms of Dominion, representing countries of which the King or Queen is Sovereign, and that it is consequently inappropriate to treat it as if it was a quartered personal coat. | ” |
(Woodcock, Page 190).
Suggestion
Is there a date for the introduction of the Saint George cross as the flag of England? I've noticed editors replacing the English coat of arms with the flag on articles such as the Crusades, which is highly dubious considering it wasn't until the Ninth Crusade that the cross was associated with England. We still seem to be light on reliable sources regarding this. Rob984 ( talk) 18:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This piece of text was removed and then restored to the article: "In the early 11th century, England became part of the " North Sea Empire" of Cnut the Great. With the Norman conquest, the kingdom became one of the territories ruled by the House of Anjou". The North Sea Empire was a personal union between 3 countries that lasted about fifteen or so years (reign of Canute the Great). If it is to be mentioned it shouldn't look like it lasted until the Norman conquest. The second part of the text is plain wrong. The Normans weren't Angevins. And for parts of their reign over England they didn't rule over Normandy, let alone other territories. I'll rewrite a little and remove a little. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kingdom of England. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't it say on the page for the year 927 that England was founded on July 12, 927 after various small kingdoms coming together and annexing each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.158.129 ( talk) 02:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I tried to fix it but don't know how. It wasn't me, but the infobox is broken. Ottawa03 ( talk) 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind it is fixed now. Ottawa03 ( talk) 20:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"the northern part of Northumbria (Roman Bernicia)"
This allusion in the Anglos-Saxon history section seems strange, given that the name of 'Bernicia' was the Latinised name of a post-Roman English kingdom Beornice, albeit deriving, it is assumed, from a British name that produced the Old Welsh 'Bryneich.'
Is it meant to be a reference to the language from which the name 'Bernicia' derived? In which case that should be made clear, as it currently suggests Bernicia was an entity in during the period of Roman rule.
JF42 ( talk) 08:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
JF42 ( talk) 08:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
"They called their land Engla land, meaning "land of the English", by Æthelweard Latinized Anglia, from an original Anglia vetus, the purported homeland of the Angles (called Angulus by Bede).'
This sentence is not clear at all. It might benefit from being divided into two. Are we still talking about the Anglo-Saxons, or the Angles? When did the term Engla land appear? The timeline is very vague, and seems jumbled. The significance of Aethelweard ahould also be explained to make clear the relevance of that reference, and his floreat made clear, since he wrote long after Bede. JF42 ( talk) 09:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Within this article in the relevant section, it is not really addressed that, in the context of the European set-up of the day, England was very much a rogue state, similar in many ways to the way ISIS is considered today. Particularly in relation to Ireland, the English state engaged in crimes which were considered abnormal for the time, such as the massacre of prisoners of war ( Siege of Smerwick, Betrayal of Clannabuidhe, Rathlin Island massacre, etc.), the explicit targeting of non-combatants including women and children, as well as causing famines deliberately (as per Humphrey Gilbert, Henry Sidney, Thomas Radclyffe and Leonard Grey). As well as this desecration of buildings and establishments associated with rival religions, including state-sponsored sectarian murder of clerics. And not forgetting the state sponsorship of piracy under the cute little denominator of " privateer" (the original Pirates of the Caribbean). Oh and the setting up of a proto- Gestapo under Francis Walsingham. Shall we perhaps mention these salient facts in the article? Claíomh Solais ( talk) 11:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
If you search for "first king of England" on Google, the snapshot it shows from this article is:
> In 827, Northumbria submitted to Egbert of Wessex at Dore, briefly making Egbert the first king to reign over a united England.
I think the inclusion of this passage is deeply misleading as what Egbert reigned over during that time could hardly be called England. While arguably the indexing performed by third parties shouldn't be of primary concern to the way content on wikipedia is developed, I think including this text does everyone a disservice.
While the date of the formation of the kingdom might be fuzzy, as far as I know Æthelstan is the undisputed first king of England. This article should make that clear and should refrain from using the term as loosely as I would argue it is.
P.S. This is my first wiki:Talk post - sorry if I broke rules and for the glaring lack of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.93.146.232 ( talk) 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the brief allusion in the "Common languages" section of the infobox to Cumbric to say that it became extinct in the 12th century, rather than the previous and, all things considered, likely incorrect reference to it doing so in the 11th century. No references to Cumbric appear in the main written body of the article. The article for the Cumbric language itself states in the infobox that the language became extinct by or during the "12th century". The article's section "Date of extinction", while acknowledging that putting a precise date on the language dying out is "impossible", uses contemporary records, accounts and documents to give a view that Cumbric was fell out of use either in the latter half of the 12th century or later. Such evidence includes the battle of the standard, in which Cumbrians/Britons are still noted as a separate ethnicity; given their material culture was similar to that of the Anglian and Gaelic neighbors, it is possible that what set them asside still was their Cumbric language. Unless a substantial objection to this is raised, this edit will remain. -- JoeyofScotia ( talk) 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The early Norman kings continued to favour Winchester until at least the reign of King Stephen. Winchester Castle served as their primary royal residence in England and was one of the very first castles to be built at the behest of William the Conqueror in 1067. The move to Westminster, whilst arguably an inevitable process that had been ongoing since even before the conquest (primarily under the reigns of Canute and Edward the Confessor), was likely only made official following the Rout of Winchester (1141) during The Anarchy (1135-53) which saw much of the city destroyed by fire.
Even after this period though, the city evidently retained some importance. Henry II continued to keep the royal treasury at Winchester Castle, even expanding the complex to better accommodate it. The Domesday Book, the great Norman survey of England which is known in Latin as the Liber de Wintonia or the Book of Winchester, also continued to be kept there until the reign of King John (1199-1216) when it and the treasury were moved to Westminster. But considering his son and eventual successor Henry III would be born there, Winchester evidently continued to serve as a royal residence of some importance until as late as 1207.
The article currently states:
Incorrectly implying that the capital was abruptly moved after the conquest and that, virtually overnight, Winchester completely lost its status as an administrative centre and the principle/preferred royal residence.
I therefore humbly suggest that the text be altered to state that Winchester remained the capital, or at least the royal seat, for a century or more after the conquest 2A00:23C6:4183:1D00:4CF1:92E6:7582:C097 ( talk) 23:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I added more citations from a non Orthodox source, and am in the process of going through my library to get more. I think there is a discussion to be had here. As evidence from non orthodox sources states that the English were not in line with Rome during the Schism. Gunkclugpug ( talk) 22:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
There is persistent editing claiming that England was Eastern Orthodox before 1066. The only source given is a biased book by an Eastern Orthodox writer. Should the article be protected to prevent further vandalism? Brother Jerome ( talk) 20:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I provided more sources of which are not Orthodox Sources. If you read into this topic, you can see the English Church was actually Seen as being in schism. The Normans had a clear religious goal for invading as well. (
talk)
22:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Obviously the Muslim stuff was someone trolling, but the edits I made originally were cited with sources, and accurately reflect England's religious status before the Norman Invasion. They were not in communion with Rome. Gunkclugpug ( talk) 21:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
i have added this page to my favourites and am going to reference it, my main paper text at home is the times historical atlas... not an ideal ref as it is probably mostly tertiary source and only covers major events and trends but at least it is reputable.................. if anyone can do better please go ahead.. it may take afew months to ref all this stuff here but please removers be patient! 82.27.221.233 ( talk) 19:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Should this redirect to England and Wales ? Morwen 15:42, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
A couple of errors and omissions below:
1. The Union of Crowns happened in 1603, not 1601 2. The Queen is also descended from several of the Kings and Princes of Wales, as well as Brian Boru and a few other High Kings of Ireland
The post-1707 numeration of monarchs follows the Anglo-Norman model, so it is relevant that she is Queen Elizabeth II because England, Ireland and Wales had a previous queen regnant named Elizabeth - but Scotland did not.
Similarly, pre-1707 William and Mary had these numbers: She was Mary II of all three countries (i.e., Mary II, Queen of Scots; Mary II, Queen of England; and Mary II, Queen of Ireland); while he was William III, King of England; William II, King of Scots; and William I, King of Ireland. But when Queen Victoria's Uncle William came to the throne just before her, he was William IV of the United Kingdom - because the numbering picked up from the highest previous number.
So, Prince William will eventually be William V - unless he chooses a different reign name (like the Queen's father, whose first name was 'Albert', and all his friends and family called him "Bertie"; but he took the reign name "George VI").
It will be interesting to see what happens if there is ever an heir to the throne named James. Scotland had seven Kings James while England, Wales and Ireland had just the last two - both before the Acts of Union of 1707. So, would the first King James of the United Kingdom be James VIII or James III? The apparent precedent would suggest James VIII but most British constitutional experts would probably conject James III; but as the post-1714 royal family have generally avoided the name James (and 'Henry', too, until Princess Diana gave it to her second son), preferring 'George' instead, we won't have an answer any time soon.
but for any articles about scotland, q e ii herself or the royal family in general the fact of descent from scots as well could be mentioned.
perhaps for clarification title could be amended to Kingdom of England till 1707 ? please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 ( talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems people are inisting on a wildly inappropriate map being on the page. The map shows the borders of present-day England. However, from 1536 to 1707, the Kingdom included Wales. Prior to 1536, the border between the Kingdom of England, and the Welsh areas, was not the same as it was now - the border was set at the same time as the Kingdom annexed Wales. This means that the border shown in the map has never been the actual border of the Kingdom with Wales. Morwen - Talk 16:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
This article as explained in its early parts not by me presumably by early authours is about pre-1707. b4 tudors wales was a separate jurisdiction from England as a nation but was a dependant fief of the English crown, similar to a colony in the 19th century. its laws and constitution were different but the sovereign was the same, and it was the sovereignty of wales that depended on the sovereignty of england and was mostly bestowed on the crown prince of england, just as it is formally bestowed on crown prince charles today. but i believe wales was not represented in the english parliament until the tudors united the lands. then wales became fully a part of england as a nation, but this article is about a kingdom not a nation and a kingdom derives from the king, which was the same person and it was not a personal union as the principality of wales was, ever since the defeat of Llewelyn the Last by Edward I, in the gift and under the sovereignty of England. Therefore the map of the kingdom of england shown should actually show the domains of any particular king of england for the time that he reigned, as this article concerns the kingdom. an indeed in those days whilst people certainly began to identify themselves as english etc there was very often a cult of personality and loyalty to the person of the monarch. the battle cry of aguncourt as reported in shakespeare "for god, harry and merry england" shows the typical triple loyalty of people in those days. i would like to see maps of the pre-1066, pre 1280, and post 1280 kingdom, but additons of interest would concern hexham shire and cuberland, changes in the welsh marches and princes acknowledging english suzerainty and any areas of france for example which actually were under the suzerainty of the english crown rather than being as in most cases the personal domains of the king of england but subject to the suzerainty of the kings of france. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 ( talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are the quartered arms of England and France being used for this page? Throughout much of England's history, it is true, the Kings of England used the arms pictured here (or its predecessor with "France ancient", azure seme-de-lis or); but that's because they claimed the throne of France. I'm going to swap in the English arms. Doops | talk 21:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
File:J1&2,C1&2 Arms.png File:QuAn Arms.png
I'm not sure if this sentence is entirely accurate. Perhaps we should specify official or formal usage. Glennh70 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as the Scots are concerned, James IV was most definitely James I of England, but James IV of Scotland because of the numbering differences. I'm not sure if there's been any problems since the James' with the numbering, but it could be something that's an issue in the future. Therefore, it's not entirely accurate to say that the title King/Queen of England is out of use because it has a specific meaning with regard to differentiating between the royal lines north and south of the border. (I would also like to suggest that most of the previous poster's point has little to do with the actual issue and more to do with their own personal bias. William and Mary cannot be compared to Philip and Mary - the circumstances of both marriages and accessions were completely different.) Emo mz ( talk) 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole article, and dozens like it, are fundamentally flawed. They keep insisting that the English state came to an end in 1707, but nothing could be further from the truth. All that happened in that year was the annexation of Scotland, and the adoption of the name Great Britain (which had already been in use for a century). All the English institutions survived, and survive to this day. TharkunColl 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So, for that matter, did the Scottish ones, if you mean by institutions legal systems, church settlements and the like. I think it far too strong to say that Scotland was 'annexed' in 1707, which would make the Union the exact equivalent of that imposed by Cromwell. I do, however, take your point; it is nonsense to contend that England somehow ceased to exist after 1707, an argument that takes as its point of departure a very narrow and legalistic view of political facts. The simple truth is that the union of 1707-and the later union of 1801-was never a combination of equals: England for whole series of factors was bound to be the dominant partner. It was the accepted form right into the twentieth century to refer to the United Kingdom as England-even Prime Ministers like Henry Campbell Bannerman, Arthur Balfour and Ramsay MacDonald, all born in Scotland, did so. Rcpaterson 02:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"Annexed" is not only far too strong, it is also entirely incorrect and insulting to the Scots. It was a Union, not an annexation. It makes as much sense as saying Scotland annexed England in 1707 i.e. no sense at all. It is inconsequential that it wasn't a union of equals. The fact of the matter, whether people like it or not, is that England (and for that matter Scotland) is not an independent state by any definition and will remain a constituent country of the sovereign state of United Kingdom until such times as their population decide otherwise. A bit like the old Soviet Union and its constituent countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Man 68 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Subnational capacity for government did not have any chance of dissolving the Union; it was not independent but confederate. Lord Loxley 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
See below. Lord Loxley 15:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The Acts of Union 1707 (in both Scotland and England) are quite explicit: "THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN" That's it. Period. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.8.149 ( talk) 18:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe some consensus should form as to the proper coat of arms and flag which represents the entity in this article. If England continued with the Stuarts, then those emblems such as the Union flag and Stuart arms should be represented. This would cause conflict with the Kingdom of Scotland article, for them to both use them and not be the same country. If England ended with the Tudors and Scotland ended with the Stewarts, then the present symbols may remain. See Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain#1603-1707 for the background discussion on this. Lord Loxley 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
shouldnt the arms used for the article not be the ultimate arms clearly those of stewart long associated with scotland before becoming english as well but the royal arms of england which were mostly the three lions... although i believe the normans used two at first... surely it is those arms that were used longest "armigerously" that should be used? and the same for flags. as for maps there is a case for a series say 2-3 or up to 5 showing the most significant aquisitions and losses 82.27.221.233 ( talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The first national flag of England was the first Union Flag, adopted in 1606, prior to that, England did not have any national flag. The St. George’s Cross came from the Order of the Garter (whose patron was St. George), and that was used for England. Scotland already had a national flag, the Sltire of St. Andrew, so the St. George’s Cross as English was invented to fuse with the Scottish flag. The Saint George’s was originally an international religious banner of the Crusades. It was re-invented as an English national flag by fans of the England football team around 1996 as a reaction against Scotland, Northern Ireland And Wales. It is still considered the football flag as the national flag remains the Union Flag. If a flag is to be put in the infix box, it should be the first Union Flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.66.76 ( talk) 08:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
81.156.41.61 ( talk · contribs) inserted the following into the article: “The Kingdom of England was a sovereign state until the reign of Richard I, who made it a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire. During the reign of his brother John "Lackland" the Kingdom became a tribute-paying vassal of the Holy See until the fourteenth century when the Kingdom rejected the overlordship of the Holy See and re-established its sovereignty.”
This seems like WP:OR. 81.156.41.61 also inserted similar statements into the Holy Roman Empire article, but they were removed here. Because these claims are questionable and unsourced, I have removed them from the article. -- Kjetil r ( talk) 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
England was made a fief of the Holy Roman Empire as part of Richard's ransom. Richard had to basically acknowledge Henry VI as his overlord and lease back his Kingdom. See [1], Henry VI's entry in the Hutchison Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare [2]. Likewise John made England and Ireland into Papal fiefs as part of his capitulation to Innocent III in 1213 in the dispute over Langton's election as Archbishop of Canterbury see [3]. As these are quite major changes in England's status they deserve to be included in the article. 81.155.196.183 ( talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
why is there no 'Union with Scotland' and 'Flag' sections like on Kingdom of Scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.82.128 ( talk) 18:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe it's a bit misleading to have the Principality of Wales listed under states that preceded the kingdom of England. It didn't exist until 1216 and wasn't really annexed (a part of it it anyway) until the time of Edward I. Maybe I'm missing something but I was thinking of removing it but wanted to check first. 90.233.167.244 ( talk) 09:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
England was founded when Egbert took over all the thrones of the little Kingdoms. Before this, it wasn't England. It's no use talking about Roman times, this was before a Kingdom was formed. 2.97.165.193 ( talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Westminster is in London, but not the city of London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 10:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing the Coat of Arms used between 1558–1603 is shown because this was before the Union of the crowns however the Kingdom did continue to exist up until 1707 therefore shouldn't the 1702-1707 Coat of Arms be used instead? Regards, Rob ( talk) 20:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Ireland was never a Royal Colony or Crown Colony. I've noticed that the Kingdom of England is often described as covering both Southern Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain is often described as covering both Great Britain and Ireland. Is it possible that Ireland was part of the Kingdom of England/Great Britain, rather then a possession? Also, the term 'kingdom' was originally used to describe any region with a king, thus Ireland could be called the 'kingdom of Ireland', even if it was only a constituent region of the Kingdom of England/Great Britain. Regards, Rob ( talk) 21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Although the common name of this state today is the Kingdom of England, historically I would assume the official name was in fact 'England', likewise with Canada today, which is a kingdom, however is not referred to as the 'Kingdom of Canada'. As currently the successor to the state was officially called 'Great Britain', I think we can assume this state is called 'England' unless evidence is provided suggesting otherwise. If this is uncontroversial, I will add 'England' to the opening sentence as with other articles which official name is listed as well as there common name. Regards, Rob ( talk) 15:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Westminster is a London borough not an independent city. Why is the borough listed and London as England's capitol?? 72.204.66.161 ( talk) 03:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This source describes Westminster as being part of London, and that the town developed separate political and commercial centres.
This source describes Westminster as being part of London, and that the metropolitan became the capital of England in the 12th century.
This source states that Westminster became the administrative centre in the 12th century.
I think both can be stated as '
City of London' and '
Westminster', or simply '
London' with a ref tag clarifying that Westminster is part of the 'London', and that the metropolitan effectively had two centres.
Regards,
Rob (
talk)
22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The kingdom of the English was declared in 886, when Alfred the Great declared himself King of the English, at a time when the English regions were divided between his kingdom, and the Danelaw. From 910, the kingdom of the English invaded the Danelaw in a series offensives, until 927 when all of the English regions formed part of the unified English kingdom. Rather then defining the formation of the Kingdom of England as 927, instead I think we should state early 10th century, as the kingdom was established gradually, not on a specific date. Thoughts? Regards, Rob ( talk) 18:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the long-standing Saint George cross since I doubt it was used in primacy. The nearest to what we today call a national flag is probably the Royal Banner.
The Royal Banner of the British monarch used by naval and land forces in 1700 was:
The part of the Royal Banner that represents England was:
And the part that excludes England's monarch's claim to the French throne was:
And there's also the Saint George cross, which was used by the English naval forces until 1606, and land forces until 1707:
And the Union Flag used by the English naval forces from 1606 to 1707:
Thoughts? Rob ( talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Rob, the damage you have done to articles concerning England and it's heraldry is simply appalling. Once again I will be going through the highest channels of complaint concerning your conduct as, thanks to your efforts, I am not aware of a single article on England which displays any of our national symbols. - H ( talk) 17:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
We can rule out the union flag as primary sources don't support the claim that it was used by naval forces. [1] [2] Rob ( talk | contribs) 10:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't find late 17th century primary sources showing land forces. English Civil War sources are useless because the symbols were used to show allegiance, with Royalists using the Royal Banner, and Cromwell's forces using the St George cross. It's quite possible the St George cross was used more often after the English Civil War because of the conflict. Rob ( talk | contribs) 11:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I've solved the flag dilemna, If you disagree than please leave a {{talkback}} message on my talk page. Duonaut ( talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
An IP editor has repeatedly included edits in the first paragraph to imply that modern-day England does not include Cornwall. This is false, see, e.g., Cornwall. Also, per WP:LEDE, this does not belong in the first paragraph, as the rest of this article does not mention Cornwall at all. I don't have a stake in the Cornish independence movement, one way or the other. Until that is successful, modern-day England does include Cornwall. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 17:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the article in the Independent does not say that the Cornwall is no longer part of England, politically. It says that being Cornish is considered a minority group. You have a habit of citing articles then departing from the text. If you really think that Cornwall is not part of "modern-day" England, maybe you should start with the Cornwall article, which says "Cornwall... is a ceremonial county and unitary authority area of England." Logical Cowboy ( talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I altered the opening paragraph to read "the kingdom included modern-day England, Wales (from the sixteenth century) and for a brief period in the 15th century the Southern Uplands of Scotland. " It's been reverted on the grounds that "before the sixteenth century, much of Wales was part of England." Now, great, marvellous, that's how Wikipedia works. Good that people are reverting things! Just explaining why I am bringing it to the talk page.
The paragraph of this article headed "Tudors and Stuarts" states that Wales was annexed to the Kingdom of England under the Laws in Wales acts in the sixteenth century. Of course, Welsh leaders from Hywel Dda onwards have pledged loyalty to English kings, been defeated by them in battle, the authority of the King of England to make laws in Wales has been accepted from long before the sixteenth century- but this is not the same thing as being part of the Kingdom of England. I would suggest that "from the sixteenth century" would be a reasonable and relevant thing to put in the paragraph.
Actually, as I say, simply something to be put in the leader as well as later on the article, as otherwise it implies that Wales was part of the Kingdom of England from the tenth century.
I won't change anything without input, so any thoughts anyone? Ceiniog ( talk) 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Changes made again! Ceiniog ( talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Under the section titled "Tudors and Stuarts", it states that "Wales now ceased to be a personal fiefdom divided between the Prince of Wales and the Earl of March".
Who on earth is the "Earl of March" in relation to Wales? This seems to be nonsense. I've been asking in talk pages before altering text, and as the first time I altered text before asking it was reverted on this article I'll put it up before altering. The principality was certainly the personal fiefdom of the Prince of Wales, the rest of Wales was divided up between different people, surely? Does anyone have any knowledge or references for this "Earl of March"? I could well be completely ignorant - indeed, I hope I am, considering this is a main reference source for people! - so just asking about the thing. Ceiniog ( talk) 02:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed this from the lead:
This is doubtful in two respects, (a) is the English channel really part of "the Atlantic Ocean" and (b) is this supposed to state a historical truth valid for the duration of the article's scope, 10th to 17th centuries? In that case, what about Wales before 1280?
Also, are we talking about "England" or about "the territory controlled by the kings of England"? If the latter, what about the Pale of Calais, (and indeed all of the Angevin Empire)? -- dab (𒁳) 08:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not as simple as "The fleurs-de-lis represent France and the lions represent England" See the arms during King Henry VI reign:
Why is the the fleurs-de-lis still part of the English half during the personal union with France?
The quartered arms were used to represent the state. Furthur more, the claim was tied to the state/the crown in right of England, not the monarch. Hence why the claim remained even when the house changed (eg Tudors to Stuarts). When the French kingdom ceased to exist, the arms were removed, however they were not removed when England and France were in personal union. So it isn't as simple as the fleurs-de-lis represented the crown's claim to France.
Rob984 (
talk)
17:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
In every personal union since the 14th century, the English state was represented by the quartered arms:
.
The quartered version of the arms was used to represent the state:
Is there any sources to show the three lions alone being used to represent the English state after the 14th century?
I don't agree with showing a symbol which hasn't been used since the 14th century.
Rob984 (
talk)
17:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I am referring both to your past removals and the most recent one, highlighted above by other users. And please don't make out as though I am solely here to insult you, I can assure you that you are not that important to me. English history and heraldry however is - H ( talk) 20:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
“ | The arms of the Kings of England retained the form assumed by Richard Coeur de Lion down to 1340, when Edward III quartered the arms of France (ancient), Azure semy of Fleurs de lis Or as part of his claim to the French throne, a claim which caused the outbreak of the Hundred Years War. At some time in the first decade of the fifteenth century (the exact date is not clear) the French quartering in the Royal Arms was altered to France (modern), Azure three Fleurs de lis Or in order to bring it into line with current French practice. The new arms of France quartered with England appear on Henry IV's second Great Seal which came into use during November 1406, though it is possible that the change had occurred a year or so before that. Froissart records that Edward III quartered the French arms at the insistence of his Flemish allies, who made it a condition of their support for his claim to the French throne. The reason was that they were bound by a pledge of two million florins to the Pope not to make war against the legitimate King of France. At a Council in Brussels they told Edward that if he bore the arms of France (to which he was lawfully entitled in right of his mother), They would regard him as the rightful King of France and this would release them from the consequences of their pledge if they fought for him. The quartered coat thus became the arms of England, not of England France together. The gold and silver coins minted after Henry VI was crowned King of France in Paris depict two escutcheons, one containing the French arms only and the other the quartered arms of EngIand; the point being that the quartered arms were not those of France and England but of England only. | ” |
(Woodcock, Page 188).
“ | ...the Arms of England and the quarterings borne with it are Arms of Dominion, representing countries of which the King or Queen is Sovereign, and that it is consequently inappropriate to treat it as if it was a quartered personal coat. | ” |
(Woodcock, Page 190).
Suggestion
Is there a date for the introduction of the Saint George cross as the flag of England? I've noticed editors replacing the English coat of arms with the flag on articles such as the Crusades, which is highly dubious considering it wasn't until the Ninth Crusade that the cross was associated with England. We still seem to be light on reliable sources regarding this. Rob984 ( talk) 18:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This piece of text was removed and then restored to the article: "In the early 11th century, England became part of the " North Sea Empire" of Cnut the Great. With the Norman conquest, the kingdom became one of the territories ruled by the House of Anjou". The North Sea Empire was a personal union between 3 countries that lasted about fifteen or so years (reign of Canute the Great). If it is to be mentioned it shouldn't look like it lasted until the Norman conquest. The second part of the text is plain wrong. The Normans weren't Angevins. And for parts of their reign over England they didn't rule over Normandy, let alone other territories. I'll rewrite a little and remove a little. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kingdom of England. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't it say on the page for the year 927 that England was founded on July 12, 927 after various small kingdoms coming together and annexing each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.158.129 ( talk) 02:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I tried to fix it but don't know how. It wasn't me, but the infobox is broken. Ottawa03 ( talk) 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind it is fixed now. Ottawa03 ( talk) 20:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"the northern part of Northumbria (Roman Bernicia)"
This allusion in the Anglos-Saxon history section seems strange, given that the name of 'Bernicia' was the Latinised name of a post-Roman English kingdom Beornice, albeit deriving, it is assumed, from a British name that produced the Old Welsh 'Bryneich.'
Is it meant to be a reference to the language from which the name 'Bernicia' derived? In which case that should be made clear, as it currently suggests Bernicia was an entity in during the period of Roman rule.
JF42 ( talk) 08:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
JF42 ( talk) 08:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
"They called their land Engla land, meaning "land of the English", by Æthelweard Latinized Anglia, from an original Anglia vetus, the purported homeland of the Angles (called Angulus by Bede).'
This sentence is not clear at all. It might benefit from being divided into two. Are we still talking about the Anglo-Saxons, or the Angles? When did the term Engla land appear? The timeline is very vague, and seems jumbled. The significance of Aethelweard ahould also be explained to make clear the relevance of that reference, and his floreat made clear, since he wrote long after Bede. JF42 ( talk) 09:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Within this article in the relevant section, it is not really addressed that, in the context of the European set-up of the day, England was very much a rogue state, similar in many ways to the way ISIS is considered today. Particularly in relation to Ireland, the English state engaged in crimes which were considered abnormal for the time, such as the massacre of prisoners of war ( Siege of Smerwick, Betrayal of Clannabuidhe, Rathlin Island massacre, etc.), the explicit targeting of non-combatants including women and children, as well as causing famines deliberately (as per Humphrey Gilbert, Henry Sidney, Thomas Radclyffe and Leonard Grey). As well as this desecration of buildings and establishments associated with rival religions, including state-sponsored sectarian murder of clerics. And not forgetting the state sponsorship of piracy under the cute little denominator of " privateer" (the original Pirates of the Caribbean). Oh and the setting up of a proto- Gestapo under Francis Walsingham. Shall we perhaps mention these salient facts in the article? Claíomh Solais ( talk) 11:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
If you search for "first king of England" on Google, the snapshot it shows from this article is:
> In 827, Northumbria submitted to Egbert of Wessex at Dore, briefly making Egbert the first king to reign over a united England.
I think the inclusion of this passage is deeply misleading as what Egbert reigned over during that time could hardly be called England. While arguably the indexing performed by third parties shouldn't be of primary concern to the way content on wikipedia is developed, I think including this text does everyone a disservice.
While the date of the formation of the kingdom might be fuzzy, as far as I know Æthelstan is the undisputed first king of England. This article should make that clear and should refrain from using the term as loosely as I would argue it is.
P.S. This is my first wiki:Talk post - sorry if I broke rules and for the glaring lack of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.93.146.232 ( talk) 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the brief allusion in the "Common languages" section of the infobox to Cumbric to say that it became extinct in the 12th century, rather than the previous and, all things considered, likely incorrect reference to it doing so in the 11th century. No references to Cumbric appear in the main written body of the article. The article for the Cumbric language itself states in the infobox that the language became extinct by or during the "12th century". The article's section "Date of extinction", while acknowledging that putting a precise date on the language dying out is "impossible", uses contemporary records, accounts and documents to give a view that Cumbric was fell out of use either in the latter half of the 12th century or later. Such evidence includes the battle of the standard, in which Cumbrians/Britons are still noted as a separate ethnicity; given their material culture was similar to that of the Anglian and Gaelic neighbors, it is possible that what set them asside still was their Cumbric language. Unless a substantial objection to this is raised, this edit will remain. -- JoeyofScotia ( talk) 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The early Norman kings continued to favour Winchester until at least the reign of King Stephen. Winchester Castle served as their primary royal residence in England and was one of the very first castles to be built at the behest of William the Conqueror in 1067. The move to Westminster, whilst arguably an inevitable process that had been ongoing since even before the conquest (primarily under the reigns of Canute and Edward the Confessor), was likely only made official following the Rout of Winchester (1141) during The Anarchy (1135-53) which saw much of the city destroyed by fire.
Even after this period though, the city evidently retained some importance. Henry II continued to keep the royal treasury at Winchester Castle, even expanding the complex to better accommodate it. The Domesday Book, the great Norman survey of England which is known in Latin as the Liber de Wintonia or the Book of Winchester, also continued to be kept there until the reign of King John (1199-1216) when it and the treasury were moved to Westminster. But considering his son and eventual successor Henry III would be born there, Winchester evidently continued to serve as a royal residence of some importance until as late as 1207.
The article currently states:
Incorrectly implying that the capital was abruptly moved after the conquest and that, virtually overnight, Winchester completely lost its status as an administrative centre and the principle/preferred royal residence.
I therefore humbly suggest that the text be altered to state that Winchester remained the capital, or at least the royal seat, for a century or more after the conquest 2A00:23C6:4183:1D00:4CF1:92E6:7582:C097 ( talk) 23:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I added more citations from a non Orthodox source, and am in the process of going through my library to get more. I think there is a discussion to be had here. As evidence from non orthodox sources states that the English were not in line with Rome during the Schism. Gunkclugpug ( talk) 22:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
There is persistent editing claiming that England was Eastern Orthodox before 1066. The only source given is a biased book by an Eastern Orthodox writer. Should the article be protected to prevent further vandalism? Brother Jerome ( talk) 20:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I provided more sources of which are not Orthodox Sources. If you read into this topic, you can see the English Church was actually Seen as being in schism. The Normans had a clear religious goal for invading as well. (
talk)
22:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Obviously the Muslim stuff was someone trolling, but the edits I made originally were cited with sources, and accurately reflect England's religious status before the Norman Invasion. They were not in communion with Rome. Gunkclugpug ( talk) 21:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |