Talk:Kingdom of England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
Kingdom of England is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] Former 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.
[edit] Elizabeth
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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
Image:J1&2,C1&2 Arms.png Image: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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
