Talk:Kingdom of England/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

references

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)

redirect question

Should this redirect to England and Wales ? Morwen 15:42, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

No. "England and Wales" is a term for the legal unity of England and Wales, which still exists.

Former Kingdom - Emphasis on the 'Former'

To answer the comment below: No, the *KINGDOM of England* does NOT still exist. In 1707, the Parliaments of Scotland and England created a new, semi-federal kingdom called the Kingdom of Great Britain. Note the name is the singular "Kingdom of Great Britain" not the plural "Kingdoms of Great Britain", clearly indicating the Kingdom of Great Britain was *one* country, not two.
But the terms of the two Acts of Union of 1707 did provide for Scotland to retain its own systems of law, education and a few other things, separate from the rest of the country. So, there was one national government, which suggests a unitary state; but more than one systemic organisation, which suggests a federal state - hence, "semi-federal". The United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland, extant since 1801, and like the Kingdom of Great Britain before it, is also semi-federal - more visibly so with the advent of "devolved assemblies" in Scotland and Wales.
Thus, in many ways, England and Scotland since 1707, as well as contemporary Wales and Northern Ireland, are best described as "states" or "provinces" of the United Kingdom (of, 1707-1801, of Great Britain) - much in the way that Ontario, Michigan and Queensland are a province or states, respectively, of Canada, the USA and Australia. The important difference, however, is that Michigan, Queensland and Ontario are each sovereign jurisdictions within an equally sovereign confederacy, whose federal state is greater than the sum of its part; whereas England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are *not* sovereign jurisdictions, but are subordinate jurisdictions to the semi-federal/semi-unitary United Kingdom. The four "provinces" are thus best described, at this time, as "administrative divisions".
So, while "There'll Always Be an England", it's been 300+ years since it was a kingdom.
The "Kingdom of England" is the former kingdom that existed until 1707, which included Wales for two centuries.
can we remember that this article covers the kingdom of england up until 1707. in fact as far as i understand the kingdom of england still exists but the king or queen takes the style "of Great Britain" a geographical area but this means that they are actually the king or queen of england and scotland, anyway that is what was said in 1707. but this article has been defined to be about the historical nation up to 1707 which seems fair enuf to me.
several comments below to me seem to be ignoring the fact that this is a historical article and i suggest that all material such as maps, flags etc relates to the period of the article ie up to 1707, which i think they do looking at the page.

Elizabeth II cf. Elizabeth I

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.


Anyone object to me pointing out that the current Queen is a succesor to the Kings and Queens of England AND Scotland?
  • No major objection, but I'm not sure it's relevant for this article. Maybe that's something to put at Kingdom of Scotland?--JW1805 16:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • why should this be in scotch medieval section any more than in this one. it is relevant to this section to point out that E II R descends from 1/ the Anglo-Saxon kings 2/ the Normans and Plantagenets and 3/ the Tudors who originted in Wales, as all 3 of these are relevant to this article anyway, whether or not the current queen descends from them. but the other fact of her descent from scottish royals is no more relevant to this page than if she were descended from the high kings of ireland or an Arawak cheif from jamaica, she is a queen yet in those places but that fact is not connected to the topic of this article which is england till 1707.

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.

actually this article covers the personal union of the crowns in 1601, and it could be pointed out at the end of the history in this article that q e ii descends from the stewart kings of england via the stewart daughter who married german royalty - obviously specifically; anyway it is almost certainly already in history of england ; i have just read it in the section on george I; the acknowledged right to the throne is from elizabeth the daughter of james I of england, the first stuart king of england... i think there is no need to say any more about scotland than would anyway be said about scotland in this article due to the personal union of 1601 anyway.

change of title

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)

Map

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)

  • It isn't "wildly inappropriate". Sure the borders may have been different before 1536, but this map shows the most recent border. Other countries have had boundary changes, but the infoboxes only have one map. As for including Wales, the England article map doesn't have Wales, even though legally, even today, England includes Wales. It is generally understood what "England", "Wales", and "England and Wales" mean. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:29, 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)

arms

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)

  • The arms of England have changed throughout its history. These were the last arms used by the Kingdom of England, therefore it would be logical to use these. Astrotrain 13:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

File:J1&2,C1&2 Arms.png File:QuAn Arms.png

  • Actually, some would argue that those first arms were the last used by the Kingdom of England. Did England become part of Great Britain with James, or with Anne (the second arms are postulated as the first held by Great Britain)? Regardless, Anne used the Jacobean arms before the (pro-Hanoverian) Parliament adapted to the Stuart practice of calling their collective island dominion "Great Britain". Regardless of Whiggish Parliamentary perceptions, the succession of James is to this day considered the "Union of the Crowns". That in my mind, makes these arms I provide the first of Great Britain and not the last of England. James himself called it Great Britain, while the Royal website begins the series of Great Britain at James--as do all genealogical charts. Cromwellians be damned, because the status of a kingdom rests on its Crown and not its Parliament--there is no British Republic (the US doesn't count, right?)! There are other reasons behind this madness. There is absolutely nobody from the middle or lower class with royal descent from King James, while the upper class calls itself British--totally anathema to those not of this social status. I think it can probably be further proved that there is nobody from the lesser classes with Protestant Royal ancestors--just Roman Catholic kings (am I right or wrong?). IP Address 13:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The title of Queen (and King) of England has however been out of use since 1707

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)

Monarchs have informally been ascribed these titles since 1603, but calling James I of England is just as retroactively like somebody calling Philip I of Spain "King of Aragon" instead. The constituent countries of Castile and Aragon have not been separated since Philip Habsburg, neither have England and Scotland been separated since James Stuart. This politique of the Stuarts was fought harshly by Parliament, but it is true that it was no different from the Habsburgs--which is why the practice was hated. Reinterpretation of history and that liberal spin of Whiggery descending from Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester (via Oliver Cromwell) does nothing but brainwash schoolchildren into believing otherwise. The revisionist interpretations I am talking about, are the advancement of Protestantism in the British Isles and this is further explained in the omission of King Philip from the Royal website beside Mary--unlike the equal status shown for William and Mary. As a descendent of those Conservative recusants who had priest holes, I will not give in to Liberal Protesant bigotry. There was a United Kingdom of Spain, which preceded in idea a United Kingdom of Great Britain...a Union of the Crowns for both countries. But keep on believing in the Black Legend. IP Address 14:20, 29 April 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)

End of the English state?

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)

Huh?Enzedbrit 01:55, 23 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)

National Coat of Arms and National Flag

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 losses82.27.221.233 (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)

Fair use rationale for Image:QuAn Arms.png

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)

England a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire?

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)

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261867/Henry-VI
  2. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=04S4YdDarD0C&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=
  3. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304550/John

'Union with Scotland' and 'Flag'

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)

Good thought, and I've added a 'Union with Scotland' section. If you feel a paragraph or two on 'Flag' is needed, then I see no objection to your adding something. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

predecessor states

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)

Kingdom of England has no founding date.

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)

The City of Westminster, near to London but not part of it

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)

Coat of Arms

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, possession or part of the kingdom?

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)

In both cases, "often described" is an overstatement. Ireland was never considered part of England or of Great Britain, and there is all kinds of evidence for that. In particular, hundreds of years of legislation throw light on the relationships between the kingdoms of the British Isles. Ireland had its own parliament and until 1801 was not represented in the House of Lords, the House of Commons of England or the House of Commons of Great Britain. Moonraker (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You're most likely right, the Act of Union also describes Ireland as a separate entity to Great Britain. I do wonder why it was never made a Crown Colony though. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Common and Official name

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)

 Done. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You can't "assume" anything. Changes made must be backed up by citations. I'm going to undo your changes but feel free to provide evidence to back up your claim. Source 3 refers to "Kingdom of England" so for now we should revert to the status quo until further sources are presented. Polyamorph (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Westminster listed as the capitol

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)

As stated in the article you linked to, London boroughs were created in 1963. The period during which the article claims Westminster was the capital (not capitol, which is something different) is 1066-1707, a time when Westminster was not "part of London". I assume that the reason Westminster is claimed to be the capital is because it was the seat of government. However, the claim to be "t8he capital" is unsourced. I'm not really sure this is justified. Talking of "capitals" at this time is slightly anachronistic as there wasn't an "official status" at the time. I would think London would have as good a claim as it was clearly England's pre-eminent city throughout the period. DeCausa (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
In the 16th century the City of Westminster and City of London conjoined to form a single metropolitan area, however it wasn't until 1889 that the entire region was described as 'London'. At the time, Westminster still had most of the characteristics of modern-day capitals, most noticeably the seat of government. There still isn't official status defining the capital of the UK today, so I don't think its anachronistic as such. Rob (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw the footnote you added, but what does it add to the issue? What's needed is an WP:RS cited. I did a quick search on google books and from what I can see London is referred to as the medieval/early modern capital in most secondary sources. I saw a small group of 19th century and early 20th century sources that referred to Westminster. On the whole I'm quite sceptical of the proposition that Westminster should be called the capital. DeCausa (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't analysed any sources, however I do think it would be likely that the entire metropolitan area would be described as 'London' from the 15th century in secondary sources, although not at the time. I don't know if you are talking about London or the City of London though. Rob (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
London#Middle Ages has some information concerning this. It states "While the City of Westminster developed into a true capital in governmental terms, its distinct neighbour, the City of London, remained England's largest city and principal commercial centre, and it flourished under its own unique administration, the Corporation of London. In 1100, its population was around 18,000; by 1300 it had grown to nearly 100,000". Rob (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether they include Westminster in "London" or not. The point is they are not saying Westminster is the capital as far as I can see. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
From my weak understanding, 'London' is used today to refer to the City of London and its surrounding metropolitan area, which since the 16th century, has included the City of Westminster. I don't disagree that the metropolitan area of London has been the capital of England since the 16th century (as it has included Westminster), and therefore I'm fine with stating London as the capital since the 16th century. If you believe that 'London' was the capital of England before the 16th century (not including Westminster) then I would disagree considering the unique political status of the City of London, and the fact that it didn't contain the seat of government. Rob (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you or I believe (or deduce from where the seat of government was or the extent that Westminster and London had merged). The only question is what WP:RS say about it. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You're right. I don't entirely agree with the conclusion reliable secondary sources are drawing, but looking at the settlements, even before the 16th century 'London' could easily have been described as the capital of England, especially considering Westminster was not a city in the form it is today, but more an outer settlement of the much larger London. Rob (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done. See edit summary. Regards, Rob (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Why have you done that? Your note says: "Before the 16th century, Westminster and the City of London formed separate conurbations, however due to there [sic] close proximity, the entire metropolitan area—known simply as 'London'—is described as the capital of England." Firstly, it's pure speculation on your part. Secondly, the reference to Westminster is now totally obscure. someone reading it is going to think: why mention Westminster? The best thing is to self-revert back to where it was originally. If there's going to be a change it should be on the basis of sources not random guesses. As I said, I saw some references in google books to London being the capital and some to Westminster. If you can't find a specific source which discusses the issue I suggest putting in both with citations for each. You don't have information to speculate on whether the references to Westminster and London are because of their physical connection, that's pure guesswork on your part. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 2 November 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)

Based on sources, it could be present as:
Winchester (927–12th century)
London (12th century–1707)
Westminster (administrative)
City of London (commercial)
As "London" appears to commonly describe both conurbations since Westminster was formed in the 11th century, I don't think they necessarily need to be stated below "London", and could be placed in a note tag instead.
Also, maps of the metropolitan show that sometime before 1707, Westminster and the City of London had conjoined, and no sources appear to describe "Westminster" as the capital of Great Britain exclusively, thus they would not need to be listed on the Kingdom of Great Britain article.
Although some sources do describe "Westminster" as the capital exclusively, this is a minority, and listing "London" and "Westminster" separately, will cause the reader to assume "London" doesn't include Westminster, which is not what any sources are suggesting.
Rob (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done. DeCausa, as per above, I have made edits here, on Kingdom of Great Britain and on UKGBI. Regards, Rob (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Date of formation of the Kingdom

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 agree we can't and shouldn't be too specific. We don't really have one date and even if we did alight on one, we could cite several others besides. Maybe, even, more vaguely "10th century"? N-HH talk/edits 09:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I am with you on this one. There is no single moment when it began. The 10thC is about as accurate as it gets.--SabreBD (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Flag

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)

Either the 3 lions banner or the St. George's cross work for me. They're both recognizable a symbols of England. While none of these was used exclusively for the entire history of the Kingdom, we should have some flag as a national symbol, and either of these work well. --Jayron32 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Without reference to reliable sources, we shouldn't display anything, as it's potentially misleading. By showing one symbol, it implies that symbol is superior to all others, which may not be the case. Also, generally, the symbol used directly before the entity ceased to exist is used in infoboxes, so long-term significance is irrelevant. – Rob (talk | contribs) 15:34, 14 April 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)

Reliable secondary sources? Rob984 (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken you said that St. George's cross was the naval ensign in the top post, Unless it was the naval jack, In that case my bad, and I didn't say any of the flags were the flag of england, I just said that the top one was the Royal Banner, and that St. George's cross was the Naval Ensign. Duonaut  (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have a particular view on this but in in this source (which I noticed looking for something else) there is this comment: "England embarked on a continuous tradition of a red cross on white from 1277". It goes o (later) to explain that the royal banner became more and more associated solely with the monarch and his agents. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • So, I guess that's a potential source then. Duonaut  (talk | contribs) 22:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Unstriking my "Unless I'm mistaken" post (Just for clarification, I was the one who striked it.). Duonaut  (talk | contribs) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cornwall

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)

In April of 2014 the UK officially recognized Cornwall as a national minority within Great Britain. Modern day Cornwall is part of the UK which until 2014 officially was made of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but as of April of this year the UK is now officially made of five nations: England, Cornwall, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. See reference:( www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cornish-people-formally-declared-a-national-minority-along-with-scots-welsh-and-irish-9278725.html).
Cornwall is no more part of England than Wales is, culturally or legally. Cornwall maintains its own language (Cornish), has its own flag, unique historic history, and along with England the majority of its people support its own devolved parliament. At any rate the article is about the Kingdom of England which historically was made of four nations: England, Cornwall, Wales, and at times southern Scotland.
The Italian scholar Polydore Vergil in his famous Anglica Historia, published in 1535, wrote that: 'the whole Countrie of Britain ...is divided into iiii partes; whereof the one is inhabited of Englishmen, the other of Scottes, the third of Wallshemen, [and] the fowerthe of Cornishe people, which all differ emonge them selves, either in tongue, ...in manners, or ells in lawes and ordinaunces.'
In the history of the Kingdom of England the country of Cornwall was always seen as distinct from England which should be noted in the article. The fact this wiki does not discuss the history of Cornwall is a fault of the article and should not be justification for excluding Cornwall as one of the nations that comprised the Kingdom of England. User:69.86.101.218 (talk) 17:47, 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)

Cornwall is administratively and legally part of England - [1], [2], [3], etc. There is a strand of political opinion that suggests that that it should have greater devolved powers than it now has; there is a recognition (as the Indy article says) that Cornish people have minority national status; and there is a widespread recognition of Cornwall's distinct and unique heritage - [4]. But, nevertheless, Cornwall is clearly, now, part of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wales (from the sixteenth century)

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)

Sounds good to me. Prior to political incorporation, Wales was subject too, but not formally a part of, the Kingdom. It took a specific event to change that, and that event happened in the sixteenth century. I say go with that. --Jayron32 19:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Changes made again! Ceiniog (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Earl of March

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)

See Earl of March and Welsh Marches and Marcher Lord. It may be better to say "Marcher Lords" rather than "Earl of March" The Earldom of March was just the most powerful of the Marcher lordships, created for the Mortimer family, which had control of many of the most powerful Marcher lordships anyways. Marcher Lord was used in stead of the continental title of Marquess or Margrave, though there were some English Marquesses during this time period, but they were rare, the Wikipedia article on Marquesses in the United Kingdom notes only 3 during the Kingdom of England; one in Ireland, and one for John of Gaunt, which was later revoked as "the name of marquess is a strange name in this realm", and a later Marquess of Winchester. I'm not sure that any of these Marquessates carried any feudal obligations, whereas the Marcher Lords certainly did; they were substantive lords with real responsibilities to rule in the Kings name in Wales. --Jayron32 03:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there isn't any sense that an English Marquesses carried they same powers as the Marcher Lords. However, by the time the Laws in Wales Acts were enacted in the 16th century there were very few Marcher Lords left. The crown had inherited most of them over the years, particularly when Edward IV came to the throne - eg his father had inherited the Earldom of March through his Mortimer mother. It would be less misleading to refer to the division between marcher lords and principality in the 13th century rather than 16th - although the later's technically still true as the crown held the land as a marcher lord or through the principaliyy. I've made a tweak to tge wording. DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "Marcher Lords" is certainly much better than "Earl of March". Implying there was only one of them misrepresented the history of the subject of the article horrendously. Thanks for that! Ceiniog (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"surrounded by the Atlantic"

I removed this from the lead:

England shared a border with Scotland to the north, but otherwise was surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean.

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)

Yeah, describing the location of the state by what's around it should probably be avoided since what's around it changed with the annexation of the P. of Wales. When we talk about 'England' we are referring to the kingdom without possessions I think. Rob984 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Arms

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)

User Rob984, after continually trying to remove the flag of England from this page, you now seem to have moved on to the royal arms. In all the examples you show above, the monarchy of the Kingdom of England is represented by the 3 lions and fleur de lys.
You state: "In every personal union since the 14th century, the English state was represented by the quartered arms". However, you strangely seem to have left out Queen Elizabeth I, who used the unquarted arms from 1558–1603, having restored the arms of King Henry IV:
To me it seems obvious that in cases of dual monarchy of two kingdoms from 1422 to 1707, the component representing the Kingdom of England (or its monarchy) is the quartered 3 lions and fleur de lys. But I'd be interested in other opinions? I do, however, take issue with Rob984 going ahead and removing the long-standing arms from the infobox before proper discussion has taken place. I have therefore restored these arms to the infobox.
Other users have previously raised an issue with Rob984 continually attempting to remove English symbolism from relevant Wikipedia pages. I don't want to be unfair, but there does seem to be a selective use of the evidence to support removal of both these royal arms and the St George's cross flag in the section above (where the research was particularly selective and skewed). What's going on here? Brunanburh (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed it because they were edit warring. I don't want to remove the arms. I agree with you entirely. Rob984 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Could someone cite the sources that say that the lions quartered with the fleur de lys specifically were used to represent the kingdom and not just the monarch. I'm getting a feeling of SYNTH in all this and it seems an unlikely proposition. For instance, basing this on a a generalised comment in a source that the monarch's arms were used as a national symbol could be SYNTH. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
But the monarch's arms (or equivalent arms of the head of state) are used in the infoboxes of many current & former sovereign states on Wikipedia, apparently being widely accepted as national symbols. Why should this page break that convention/precedent? I don't see why the Kingdom of England should be considered as a special case. Brunanburh (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The monarchs of England have used multiple arms, changing depending on who they were married to and which titles they claimed. You cannot simply pick one example of this. The sensible thing to do would be to use the arms of England itself, which are the three lions. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see the relevance of that. We only work on the basis of reliable sources. They either support this or they don't. The arms of the ruler may or may not be considered a symbol of the political entity which is the subject of the article. It's a case-by-case issue to be determined by the RS. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the lack of reliable sources. There are plenty of sources demonstrating the use of the arms representing the English monarchy / head of state (especially on the Royal Arms of England page). What you're asking for are references associating the arms with England in a way that bypasses the monarch: why? That's a specific request you have constructed, and one that is not a requirement on other sovereign state pages. Brunanburh (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
In addition, the existence of the sovereign state itself was defined by the monarchy, hence the name 'Kingdom of England'. To demand that national symbols of historical states be justified in the absence of the monarch is therefore absurd, irrespective of our modern opinions on what defines or represents a state. Brunanburh (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That's WP:OR. This is not an article about the Kings of England. If this is to be used as a symbol of the Kingdom of England as opposed to yhe monarch then it shouldn't happen without an RS. That's pretty basic Wikipedia stuff. Do I really have to cite WP:V and argue for something so basic? DeCausa (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you cite reliable sources that claims the three lions arms were used to represent the English kingdom after the 14th century? Rob984 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It is shown by the fact that the lions are included in the achievement of the King of England and (nominally) France. The lions represent England and the fleurs-de-lys represent France. Why do you find this so difficult to understand? Zacwill16 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Your conclusion is original research. Rob984 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rob984:In answer to your earlier question. No I can't, but I'm not asserting that either. I'm doubtful of the whole concept of using the arms of the English monarch as a national symbol in this way, but I'm particularly doubtful of using the quartered version. On what RS is reliance being placed for any of the national symbols in the infobox? No one seems able to answer! DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The blazon of the royal arms, as given here, is Quarterly 1 & 4: azure, three fleur-de-lys or (France) 2 & 3: gules, three lions passant guardant in pale or armed & langued azure (England).
Note that the fleurs-de-lys are described as France and the lions as England. Please stop this farce. Any reasonable person could see you are wrong. Which, before you ask for sources, is shown by the fact that no one has backed up your claims, whereas multiple people have decried them. Zacwill16 (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you not understand WP:NOR?
you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
The material, is the arms composed of three lions. You have not cited a reliable source that directly supports the arms composed of three lions being used to represent England after the 14th century. All you have demonstrated is that the three lions (NOT THE ARMS COMPOSED OF THREE LIONS) were used on a different set of arms to represent England. How does that "directly support" the arms composed of three lions??? It doesn't. Rob984 (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
How does it not support it? The three lions were used on the arms of the King of England and France to represent England. Ergo, the arms of England are the three lions. It's really quite simple. I'm not sure why you find it difficult to understand. Zacwill16 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
How does the three lions being used to represent England in one symbol, directly support a different symbol composed of three lions? It doesn't. Rob984 (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. It's the same symbol. Zacwill16 (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter anyway. You're interpreting a primary source. Please provide a reliable source that claims that those arms are the arms of England after the 14th century. Rob984 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Very well. From Alexander Nisbet's System of Heraldry Vol. 1 page 39: "And the royal bearing of England has such a blazon, gules, three lions passant gardant in pale, or." No mention of fleurs-de-lys. Nisbet is probably the most cited and well-respected herald in Scotland, and if there was any doubt about what constituted England's royal arms he would have mentioned it.Zacwill16 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
What don't you people understand about "directly support the material being presented"? Where in that source does it refer to an "arms"??? "Royal bearing" ≠ "Royal Arms". A bearing is a hereditary symbol, not necessarily an arms. Rob984 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You're one to talk about people not understanding things; you're one of the most obtuse persons I've ever met. 'Arms' and 'bearings' are synonyms. You're clutching at straws in your attempt to defend your ridiculous, flawed, and biased viewpoint. Zacwill16 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Per the aforementioned source, I have now fixed the article to use the correct arms. Please do not make any further changes without discussing them here. Zacwill16 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
See edit summary, and please observe WP:BRD. Rob984 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The damage Rob984 has done to English heraldry on wikipedia pages is nothing short of scandalous. Be under no illusion that under his supposed campaign for 'reliable sources' he will literally wipe out every existing representation of heraldry there is for England, as I know he tried a few times with the Scottish. Don't thank me for removing my last comment as I have no respect for you whatsoever. - H (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to look for reliable sources if I have no reason to believe they exist. If you're so sure you're right, then there will be reliable sources. Not my fault you're too lazy to look. I really don't care if you think I'm an English-hating Frenchman, but please, stop whining at every given opportunity. Vive la France XD Rob984 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to type what I think you are on here, but it's far worse than an English-hating Frenchman. On a more relevant basis you have gone ahead and deleted these items without consulting anyone and, when challenged (often by more than one person), you have insisted that your opinion is indisputable and ultimate, going against consensus. This is not whining, this is me telling you that you and your vicious little crusade to undermine our history is disgraceful. - H (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What opinion? The opinion that Wikipedia articles should not contain original research? Huh? Personally, I feel it is disrespectful to represent England with inaccurate symbolism, as I would think most other English people would. Rob984 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
PS, this is the most pathetic use of sock puppet I have seen. Your single purpose account isn't very convincing either. The geolocation of your IP is the City of London. So is 149.254.51.59. Coincidence? Stop using sock puppets. Rob984 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
"Sock-Puppet"? Not that 9,787,425 other people live in London, you mong. And for what it's worth I made my account specifically to tackle people like you and your contemptible behaviour. English heraldry is far from "original research" and has a solid founding in modern society and history. Your attempts to desecrate this history is unbelievably insulting, in fact everyone I've ever seen on these articles disagrees with you so thats a clue. Bore off 94.3.69.53 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Have you even read the discussion? Nobody here wants to remove the arms. What's contended is which arms should be displayed. As far as I can see, you are solely here to make derogatory comments about another editor. Please stop. Rob984 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2015 (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)

Uh, read my response to that comment... Rob984 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As if. I don't believe you, but given your track record what does it matter anyway. - H (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rob984: What sources are you relying on to say that the quartered arms was used to represent England after the 14th century? Could you cite them because I can't see them in this thread. I would suggest that it would be WP:SYNTH to use a source that merely says they were the arms of the English monarch, without it also saying it was used to represent the country as well as the monarch. DeCausa (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Source for consideration (Arms)

The Oxford Guide to Heraldry by Thomas Woodcock, Oxford University Press, 1990.
Commons image of coin of Henry VI as mentioned by Woodcock.

(Woodcock, Page 188).

(Woodcock, Page 190).

Suggestion

I suggest using this File:Royal Coat of Arms of England (1399-1603).svg image as a compromise. It is less specific than the full coat of arms with supporters, crest, mottoes. The Garter circlet and crown has remained unchanged since from the reign of King Edward III all the way to Elizabeth I. In fact I would argue that the three lions of England was more personal to the feudal kings of the early middle ages and was never meant to represent their feudal holdings but their dynastic heritage and rights (Norman, Angevin and Plantagenet). Sodacan (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I hope these references can help bring some of the editors to a better understanding. I don't want to open old arguments or cause any conflict. Just thought that this was needed. I also have more sources, mostly in books though. Sodacan (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Date for flag

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)

As far as I'm aware, the conventional view is that it was introduced at the time of the Conquest of Wales by Edward I. See, for instance, Andrea Ruddick (21 November 2013). English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth Century. Cambridge University Press. p. 290. ISBN 978-1-107-65250-7. DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

North Sea Empire and Angevins

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)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Date of the founding of England

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)

What is going on with the page?

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)

Roman Bernicia

"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)

by Æthelweard Latinized Anglia

"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)

The ISIS of the 16th century?

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)

I suspect you'll be disappointed.JF42 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
There's no problem with mentioning atrocities (it's no secret that we often whitewash history for nationalistic reasons), but to say the English were the only ones acting in such a way without a source discussing the topic would be OR. Rob984 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Ha-ha, pure WP:OR, but good try.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

First King of England

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)

Infobox languages: Cumbric

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)

Norman capital of England

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)

England Eastern Orthodox?

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)

Kingdom of England edits

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_England/Archive_1&oldid=1136878552"