View previous topic | View next topic

England

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Flash
123495.  Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:56 pm Reply with quote

Maybe there's some mileage in the business about how distinguishing "England" from the other countries in the UK is only a recent practice. If so, this (posted elsewhere) might be good for the notes. Questions involving the Royals always seem to work well, and the idea of a "King Kenneth" ought to set them off.

Quote:
If there was another Queen Victoria, she would unequivocally be Victoria II because there has only been one Queen Victoria in either England or Scotland (the same person). Similarly but differently, if there was a King John he could be called John II because there's been one King John in England and also one King John in Scotland (different people). But if there was a King Kenneth he'd have to be Kenneth IV because there have been three King Kenneths in Scotland (in the same way that Elizabeth was called Elizabeth II in Scotland even though they never had an Elizabeth I there).


I can't copy it over because of the formatting, but there's a table showing that we'd be on Malcolm V, Constantine IV, Dub II and James VIII if any of those names came up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regnal_numerals_of_future_British_monarchs

 
MatC
146388.  Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:18 am Reply with quote

If we spread this to include "Who is English?" here's a nice quote:

“No one could be more English than I am. Born in Munich in 1860, of pure Danish descent.” - Walter Sickert.

S: Sunday Telegraph, 5 Nov 06.

 
dr.bob
146409.  Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:37 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Quote:
But if there was a King Kenneth he'd have to be Kenneth IV because there have been three King Kenneths in Scotland (in the same way that Elizabeth was called Elizabeth II in Scotland even though they never had an Elizabeth I there).


If that's true, then surely James VI and James VII should have been so called in both England and Scotland, since James VI's rule was the point at which the crowns were unified. However, they're not. They're always referred to as James I & VI, and James II & VII. So, if we had a King Kenneth, would he likewise be called Kenneth I & IV?

Should Elizabeth be known as Elizabeth II & I?

How confusing.

edit: Just checking on wikipedia's list of British Kings and it claims that William III of England was known as William II in Scotland and William I in Ireland.

Talk about an identity crisis!

 
dr.bob
146414.  Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:45 am Reply with quote

Second post on the same subject, but this one's markedly different to the first so I thought I'd post it as a separate message.

On the subject of England, Geoffrey Sampson's article about the birth of English is a good read:

http://www.grsampson.net/QBirthOfEng.html

It goes into detail about the different influences of the English language and even touches on where the name "England" comes from, and why our country is named after the Angles rather than the Saxons. Apparently one theory is that the name was coined by Bede who, as a Northumbrian, considered himself more of and Angle than a Saxon (though apparently there are suggestions of references to "Anglia" in Latin writings predating Bede).

I mention this last bit because I remember when reading it the first time he says:

Quote:
If the name is down to Bede, he did us a good turn. In the east, the men of the seax turned through the evolution of sounds into the men of Essex. In the south, they turned into the men of Sussex. So, if the Saxon side of the Anglo-Saxon combination had happened to become the dominant name, I would probably be living in Sexland, and we would be speaking Sexish.

We English are a highly respectable nation; those names would not have suited us. “English” will do very nicely. Here’s venerating you, Bede!

 
Flash
146564.  Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:33 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
If that's true, then surely James VI and James VII should have been so called in both England and Scotland, since James VI's rule was the point at which the crowns were unified.


No, because a new policy was promulgated at the time of the present Queen's accession, according to the Wiki article cited above:
Quote:
... affirming the Queen's intention to continue as "the Second" throughout the UK, a policy was announced that all future UK monarchs would be numbered uniformly according either to an English or Scottish reckoning, whichever was higher.

 
dr.bob
146730.  Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:46 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
No, because a new policy was promulgated at the time of the present Queen's accession, according to the Wiki article cited above:


Ahhh, I see. I'd been wondering about that.

[mental note: must read cited articles]

 
Flash
154171.  Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:52 am Reply with quote

1st May 2007 is the tercentenary of the United Kingdom:

Quote:
The Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, be United inot One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain


The Act of Union, 1707

 
Flash
154174.  Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:54 am Reply with quote

And it's a good year for unions all round: the 9th May is Europe Day, the 50th anniversary of the EU.

 
dr.bob
154192.  Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:18 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
1st May 2007 is the tercentenary of the United Kingdom


Indeed. I'm currently waist deep in bunting due to all the elaborate preparations designed to celebrate this fact up here north of the border :)

 
Flash
154427.  Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:41 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands


... according to Stephen Oppenheimer's book The Origins of the British: a Genetic Detective Story.

Quote:
Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis ... indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language....

Celtic languages and the people who brought them probably first arrived during the Neolithic period. The regions we now regard as Celtic heartlands actually had less immigration from the continent during this time than England. Ireland, being to the west, has changed least since the hunter-gatherer period and received fewer subsequent migrants (about 12 per cent of the population) than anywhere else. Wales and Cornwall have received about 20 per cent, Scotland and its associated islands 30 per cent, while eastern and southern England, being nearer the continent, has received one third of its population from outside over the past 6,500 years. ...

(A myth) which persists to this day, is that the English are almost all descended from 5th-century invaders, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, from the Danish peninsula, who wiped out the indigenous Celtic population of England.

The story originates with the clerical historians of the early dark ages. Gildas (6th century AD) and Bede (7th century) tell of Saxons and Angles invading over the 5th and 6th centuries. ...

Some geneticists still cling to the genocide story. Research by several genetics teams associated with University College London has concentrated in recent years on proving the wipeout view on the basis of similarities of male Y chromosome gene group frequency between Frisia/north Germany and England (but) The problem is that the English resemble in this way all the other countries of northwest Europe as well as the Frisians and Germans. ... When I looked at exact gene type matches between the British Isles and the continent, there were indeed specific matches between the continental Anglo-Saxon homelands and England, but these amounted to only 5 per cent of modern English male lines, rising to 15 per cent in parts of Norfolk where the Angles first settled. There were no such matches with Frisia ...

... based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets.


http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

 
Frederick The Monk
154429.  Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:48 am Reply with quote

Seems eminently sensible although I'm not sure why he picks on the Basques as our ancestors.

 
Flash
154431.  Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:55 am Reply with quote

That's my fault for not quoting the whole article, I think. I agree that it sounds odd, but it does seem to be argued quite cogently as far as I am qualified to say, and certainly at some length.

 
MatC
164345.  Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:02 am Reply with quote

“Many of these old English names are now dying out as prudish owners change them by deed poll” (from the draft England script, as circulated).

If we use that phrase, common though it is, someone is certain to pick us up on it. On the other hand, the mythunderstandings surrounding name changes and peed dolls are in themselves interesting, and perhaps worth including on the notes:

Quote:
You can change your name at any time, as long as you are 18 or older, and as long as you are not doing it to commit fraud. There is no legal process you must follow. All you need do is start using your new name and tell people that you now want to be known by this name.

- www.clsdirect.org.uk/legalhelp/leaflet31.jsp?section=3&lang=en

Quote:
If you want to get all your documents and records changed to show a new name e.g. your medical records, bank account, credit cards, UK passport, driving licence etc, you will be asked to produce documentary evidence of your change of name. A Deed Poll is a formal statement to prove that you have changed your name and it provides you with the necessary documentary evidence of the name by which you wish to be known

- http://www.ukdps.co.uk/WhatIsADeedPoll.html

(Incidentally, from the same site:
Quote:
A Deed is a written legal agreement that has been signed and delivered (shown to all concerned parties). Poll is an old English word used to describe a legal document that had its edges cut (polled) so they were straight. This was done to visually distinguish between a deed signed by one person (a polled deed - hence the term Deed Poll) and a deed signed by more than one person (an indenture), which had an edge indented or serrated. Interestingly, indentures were originally written twice (side by side) on one piece of parchment, which was then torn down the middle and each half given to each party. The impossibility of matching the tear was a guard against forgery.)


So: signing a deed poll does not change your name; your name is changed when you say it is, the deed poll is merely a convenient piece of paper. Therefore phrases like “she changed her name by deed poll” are completely wrong.

 
MatC
164346.  Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:10 am Reply with quote

“Well into the 20th century the term England was used interchangeably to mean England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and even the Empire as a whole.”

I feel that’s too bald; we’re making it sound as if the word Britain didn’t exist (by the way, the words “with Britain“ are presumably missing after “interchangeably,“ above), and as if this was a settled and universal usage. I suspect it would be easy to find examples in, say, Victorian times of accurate usage of “Britain” and “Great Britain” and “the British Isles” contemporaneous with the loose use of “England” described above.

I am, of course being, picky - but I think “was often used” instead of “was used” would keep the interestingness of the answer, while also improving its accuracy.

 
Molly Cule
165311.  Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:08 am Reply with quote

The Wedding Ring of England is a ring made for the coronation of William IV in 1831, it has been worn at every coronation ceremony since - except for Queen Victoria's coronation as her finers were too small that the ring would fall off. She had a new ring made for her coronation that was forced onto the wrong finger, which really hurt.

jewels- a secret history.


Last edited by Molly Cule on Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group