View previous topic | View next topic

England

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

Flash
165350.  Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:10 am Reply with quote

Mat - the source was this:

Quote:
The correct and careful use of such terms as "United Kingdom" in any context other than the strictly legal is a recent development, dating from about the 1930s, when modern Scottish nationalism became a live political issue. Anything written before that date, even by historians, is likely to use "England". Disraeli famously signed the 1878 Treaty of Berlin as "Prime Minister of England", to the dismay of his Foreign Office advisers. And A.J.P. Taylor, in the preface to his volume of the "Oxford History of England", published in 1965, had to point out that "when the Oxford History was launched a generation ago 'England' was still an all-embracing word. It meant indiscriminately England and Wales, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and even the British Empire." As a result of this, the usual term in most foreign languages has always been "England", and will probably continue to be so for some time yet.

http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html

But it does look like there should be mention of "Britain" as an option, as you say.

 
MatC
165566.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:53 am Reply with quote

Oh yes, I’m not disputing that Ingerland was widely used to mean Britain - I’m warning against us giving the impression that the term Britain wasn't also used. I can supply scores of 19th century (and, indeed, before) “Britains” (and “Britons” for the inhabitants.) I just think we’re in danger of creating a myth here: that Britain was invented in the 1930s. It wasn’t.

Also, these fashions come and go; for a while in the 19th century, for instance, Scotland was often referred to (in Scotland) as North Britain and Scots as North Britons. There is (or was until very recently) a hotel in Edinburgh called, I think, the North Briton.

We mustn’t suggest that there were unbroken centuries of “England” which then became “UK” (or whatever). The truth is, there haven’t been unbroken centuries of any-think.

Also, I think the Scottish Nationalist hypothesis (above) is very contentious. I think a much stronger argument could be made for the “total war” or “people’s war” philosophy of WW2 as being the greatest engine of the change to “Britain.” Too much to go into here, but just one point is that it was necessary to convince communist-inclined key communities, especially in Scotland and Wales, that this was not an imperialist war, but a war of the united masses against tyranny. Hence, exhorting Welsh miners to dig faster in order to defeat “England’s” enemies would have been giving an unnecessary opening to the enemy within.

And so it goes, to quote the late master.

 
dr.bob
165583.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:13 am Reply with quote

MatC wrote:
Also, these fashions come and go; for a while in the 19th century, for instance, Scotland was often referred to (in Scotland) as North Britain and Scots as North Britons. There is (or was until very recently) a hotel in Edinburgh called, I think, the North Briton.


The North British Hotel (or NB as the residents knew it) stood at number 1 Princes Street and its famous clock tower is a recognisable landmark of Edinburgh. It seems it took its name from the North British Railway Company who originally owned it (you used to be able to take a lift direct from Waverley station into the hotel).

It was sold in the 80's and, after three years of refurbishment, reopened as the Balmoral Hotel in 1991, though residents continued to refer to it as the NB. It now has a bar on the ground floor called "NB's"

s: http://www.stuckonscotland.co.uk/edinburgh/balmoral-hotel-history.html

 
MatC
165620.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:25 am Reply with quote

Quote:
(you used to be able to take a lift direct from Waverley station into the hotel).


Cor, neat! Like something out of "Get Smart". Link to engineering, eh?

 
Molly Cule
165630.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:41 am Reply with quote

In 18th C England, if you popped into a posh house for tea you might see the maids decked out in fine pearls. This was because they were keeping them luminous for their mistress. Pearls need humans to be beautiful. If they are left in a bank vault they turn yellow, next to human skin they become luminescent.
S Jewels – a secret history.

 
eggshaped
165637.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:48 am Reply with quote

According to this site, it's because of the humidity of the skin. But also,

Quote:
When taking off your pearls, wipe them with a dry, lint-free cloth. The calcium carbonate in pearls dissolves in human sweat or oil from the skin, and this will diminish the pearls' luster


Must remember that.

 
Flash
165655.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:30 am Reply with quote

I'll just nip over to the Pearls thread with that.

 
Flash
165882.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:50 pm Reply with quote

This is a post from the outer regions:

Quote:
Q: Where is England?
Alan Davies: Here/Between Scotland and Wales
*Alarm sounds*

A: In fact, the original England (German: Angeln; Latin: Anglia) is a peninsula in Schleswig-Holstein, close to the border between Germany and Denmark. It is believed that the Angles inhabited this region until their subsequent emigration to Great Britain.


One for the notes, maybe?

 
eggshaped
165938.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:38 pm Reply with quote

If we can stack this up, I reckon it's a great question.

Alan's reaction would be a treat.

 
suze
165940.  Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:49 pm Reply with quote

I should have gone to bed some time ago, and I'll probably not be able to give it any serious thought until Sunday now.

But the basic premise is correct. I posted briefly on it "outside" in post 149441.

 

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group