 |
| The six regions of England |
The Stateless State of the Nation
The political scene across the British archipelago has not been as complex nor fractious as it is now since universal suffrage giving (almost) all adults (over 21 years old) the vote irrespective of sex, income or property ownership finally became law in 1928. One problem we have here is an identity issue, who are we? This question is less problematic for our Celtic neighbours, the national identities of the Scots, or Welsh is better defined than that of the English. In Northern Ireland at the opposite end of the spectrum rigid national and cultural identities have at times in its history threatened to tear the place apart. We all have multiple nationalities we are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the UK), we are also British and also seperately English, (Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish). There is a tendency for some people to use the terms English and British interchangeably and although this is incorrect it is not uncommon in many parts of the Anglosphere.
Then there is the mythology that imagines Great Britain is some ancient land whose history reaches back into the mists of time, the land of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and all that, this is largely a construct of Hollywood and Britain's own popular culture and fiction throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
Great Britain loosely came into being with the arrival of James Stuart as king of Scotland and England in 1603 and whose court was in London.
The concept and actuality of Great Britain wasn't completely formalised until the Acts of Union cemented Scottish accession to rule from London in 1707.
Great Britain loosely came into being with the arrival of James Stuart as king of Scotland and England in 1603 and whose court was in London.
The concept and actuality of Great Britain wasn't completely formalised until the Acts of Union cemented Scottish accession to rule from London in 1707.
The United Kingdom itself didn't come about until 1801 when the island of Ireland was absorbed into the union which is where it remained until 1922.
Some argue that plain old Britain without the Great refers only to England and Wales. The union of these countries can be said to have taken place when a Welsh dynasty the Tudors descended from Prince Rhys ap Tewdwr, that ruled the Kingdom of England and its realms, including the Lordship of Ireland, later the Kingdom of Ireland, from 1485 until 1603. (Wikipedia)
During that Tudor period the Principality of Wales came to an end as a legally defined territory and was formally annexed to England with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542.
Some argue that plain old Britain without the Great refers only to England and Wales. The union of these countries can be said to have taken place when a Welsh dynasty the Tudors descended from Prince Rhys ap Tewdwr, that ruled the Kingdom of England and its realms, including the Lordship of Ireland, later the Kingdom of Ireland, from 1485 until 1603. (Wikipedia)
During that Tudor period the Principality of Wales came to an end as a legally defined territory and was formally annexed to England with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542.
Today England is by far the most populous of the countries that comprise the British isles with about 84% of the population of the United Kingdom living here. The name England comes from the Anglo-Saxon Engla Land or land of the Angles, the Germanic peoples who started to populate southern Britain in the 5th century AD.
It is I think an interesting fact in the face of officially sanctioned xenophobia giving rise over the last few years to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) an extreme rightwing coalition of conservative eurosceptics, neo-fascists and readers of tabloid newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Sun, who would I think be deeply shocked and offended to discover the simple fact that England was actually originally created by immigrants.
It is I think an interesting fact in the face of officially sanctioned xenophobia giving rise over the last few years to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) an extreme rightwing coalition of conservative eurosceptics, neo-fascists and readers of tabloid newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Sun, who would I think be deeply shocked and offended to discover the simple fact that England was actually originally created by immigrants.
Not only was England established by immigrants, but its language is a mongrel tongue comprising of loanwords borrowed from many different donor languages and constructed on a framework of archaic Germanic roots.
England is a construct of incomers after the Romans departed Brittania, they were mostly economic migrants and settlers coveting the fertile lands of the south and east of the British mainland, some of whom had first arrived as mercenaries and auxillaries of the now gone Romans and they just stayed and settled down here.
However, the ethnic makeup was already a mix of Romano British, Brythonic and various other ethnicities some of whom first arrived with the Romans between 55 BC until 450AD when they finally left British shores to address the crisis at home. The Celtic nations to the west and north including Picts, Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Irish and to the southwest the Bretons also had a presence in what was to become England. In the southeast the Belgae from what is now northern France and Belgium had a signifcant foothold in Kent. Waves of subsequent immigration has enriched the cultural canvas upon which the idea of England has been painted and added complex patterns to the tapestry of English life, and all that from well before the word go as well!
Add into the pot the Danes and we see a very diverse population in the territory that became England even before its actual existence as a distinct national entity. The Anglo-Saxons had seven minor kingdoms (the Heptarchy) that with the exception of Wessex, were all devastated and eventually overrun by Viking incursions and by the establishment of Danelaw during the period sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages roughly between the years of 500 and 850AD.
The Scandinavian languages of the Danelaw areas and the Viking invaders brought about the first lexical enrichment of the proto-English language's Anglo-Frisian base, so English is not only a hotch-potch of other languages mostly from the Indo-European family but, during the 7th and 8th centuries it comprised of at least four distinct dialects, which were the founding pillars of the language we are using here to communicate now.
However, the ethnic makeup was already a mix of Romano British, Brythonic and various other ethnicities some of whom first arrived with the Romans between 55 BC until 450AD when they finally left British shores to address the crisis at home. The Celtic nations to the west and north including Picts, Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Irish and to the southwest the Bretons also had a presence in what was to become England. In the southeast the Belgae from what is now northern France and Belgium had a signifcant foothold in Kent. Waves of subsequent immigration has enriched the cultural canvas upon which the idea of England has been painted and added complex patterns to the tapestry of English life, and all that from well before the word go as well!
Add into the pot the Danes and we see a very diverse population in the territory that became England even before its actual existence as a distinct national entity. The Anglo-Saxons had seven minor kingdoms (the Heptarchy) that with the exception of Wessex, were all devastated and eventually overrun by Viking incursions and by the establishment of Danelaw during the period sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages roughly between the years of 500 and 850AD.
The Scandinavian languages of the Danelaw areas and the Viking invaders brought about the first lexical enrichment of the proto-English language's Anglo-Frisian base, so English is not only a hotch-potch of other languages mostly from the Indo-European family but, during the 7th and 8th centuries it comprised of at least four distinct dialects, which were the founding pillars of the language we are using here to communicate now.
- Northumbrian in Northumbria, north of the Humber
- Mercian in the Kingdom of Mercia
- West Saxon in the Kingdom of Wessex
- Kentish in Kent
19 Days of Freedom
England was founded when The English lands were again unified in the 10th century in a reconquest completed by King Athelstan in 927. Although the Norse threat did not go away and was not roundly defeated by the Saxons until the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September 1066. It is one of English history's supreme ironies that very soon after the final defeat of the Viking armies, followed the defeat of the recenly victorious Anglo-Saxon army and King Harold at the Battle of Hastings, from whence began the Norman Conquest, just 19 days after the decisive defeat of the Norsemen at Stamford Bridge.
Since those times England and the English have been under the control of a succession of non-English dynasties, the Normans, the Frankish House of Anjou (the Angevins), the Anglo-French Plantagenet dynasty, the Welsh House of Tudor, the Scottish Stuart dynasty, the Dutch House of Orange, the German Hannoverians including the thoroughly German pedigree of the current incumbent of the British throne, HRH Queen Elizabeth II.
There is then a reading of history that says England is a country that was invented by immigrants and ruled by foreigners for the best part of the last thousand years.
Nothing much has changed. In 2014 England has no parliament, no government and no independent existence of its own.
The former Kingdom of England existed from 927 until 1707, so for a period of 780 years, whereas the United Kingdom has been in existence for about 307 years but is now faltering under the multifaceted pressure of globalisation, regionalism, economic decline and political devolution on the celtic fringes which has left England completely high and dry.
English nationalism is not as I have attempted to briefly sketch here - a simple matter.
It isn't simple now and it has never been simply a question of racial or ethnic integrity, in that sense the situation in England is much more akin to America than such ethnically homogenous countries as say Japan, or both of the Korea's at the other extreme.
As DNA studies alone have clearly shown, all notions of race and ethnicity are social constructs but obviously very significant ones, particularly in England at the present time for a whole combination of reasons.
England has had to reinvent itself in the wake of political devolution in the UK since 1999 which has given rise to a Scottish Parliament (which had previously gone into voluntary liquidation in 1707) a Welsh Assembly and a National Assembly for Northern Ireland.
The UK parliament in London comprises of elected representatives from all parts of United Kingdom that are making laws for England over which we the citizens of this country have no control, while the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have no accountability to anyone for the decisions they make about England alone because they do not apply to their own electorates at home and have no effect upon their popularity with the voters that elect them to Westminster.
The British unwritten constitution resembles something from Alice in Wonderland fully replete with grandiose theatricals, but with no real substance and set against the now imminent prospect of Scottish Independence (or at the very least devolution-max) it is increasingly meaningless and has sadly descended further into the realms of the absurd.
So here are the basic fundamentals of English nationalism, a concept many right-thinking people shrink away from because of the risk that it might sound a bit fascistic. No such qualms automatically attach to Celtic nationalisms you will note, but when uttered by English nationalists suddenly the terms become suspect?... So I think we have to be clear about a few things.
First is that English nationalism, if it is to represent the spirit of the nation cannot be anything other than multicultural. All of England's history demands that and it is indelibly inscribed upon the very bedrock of the people as reflected in the origins and the evolution of the English language. That is to say, it is and must be a nationalism that recognises it co-exists with many other nationalisms and is not afraid to embrace ethnic and cultural diversity in a spirit of mutual respect and tolerance. Its the English way.
Xenophobia is not only unpatriotic but profoundly ahistorical, as the 20th century demonstrated in England and indeed across all of Britain, fascism has been rightly regarded as a rather continental excess of sentimental irrationality.... or if not - just downright evil.
Here is a link to a 2012 pamphlet on English political self determination called The Dog That Finally Barked; England as an Emerging Political Community a discussion paper published by the Institute for Public Policy Research.
http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/02/dog-that-finally-barked_englishness_Jan2012_8542.pdf
The English comprise of everyone who lives in England irrespective of cultural or ethnic background and whose interests are bound up with future of the country in Europe and in the world. Our closest political allies are the Scots, Welsh and Irish separatists, it is yet another irony that we are perhaps now more united in our desire to achieve local autonomy than we were as constituents of this outdated imperial throw-back that is the UK today.
The constitutional form of an independent England I would prefer is a republic with greatly devolved powers to the localities, but whatever form a reinvented England takes, it will have its own interests within the wider European community and on a regional basis so that a direct link between let's say the English West Midlands and the Spanish region of Catalonia would be possible without any direct reference to, or involvement of either Spain or the United Kingdom.
A Europe of confederated regions, or to use EU-speak full blown subsidiarity and devolution of decision making to the most appropriate level, a Europe of the regions of which England will one day have a place in its own right. I suggest that this is the model for English nationalism, which is more or less indistinguishable from English regionalism which gives us Geordies, Scousers, Brummies and a whole host of other local allegencies, identities and rivalries (especially in sport).
There is a new national agenda for England which has nothing directly to do with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland nor anywhere else for that matter, whether an idependent England would apply to join the British Commonwealth would be a matter for debate and discussion. Of course it is quite possible that the secession of England from the Union would cause the implosion of the Commonwealth and the fizzling out of any last vestiges of a long gone empire anyway.
The people of England cannot continue to have no meaningful political voice within Britain and Europe, there is a cultural revolution gaining impetus in this country that has been forced to stop ignoring its own history and culture and to seriously question who are the English and what is England all about?
Some of what I am referring to is captured here in a song, A Place Called England performed (a touch ironically in Antwerp, Belgium) by its composer Maggie Holland. It is an anthem of the pastoral revolution with roots as deep as the 17th century Diggers, its about gardening and allotments growing produce... which in a supermarket economy and consumer culture like ours, is I think a revolutionary act in itself. Enjoy!
There is then a reading of history that says England is a country that was invented by immigrants and ruled by foreigners for the best part of the last thousand years.
Nothing much has changed. In 2014 England has no parliament, no government and no independent existence of its own.
The former Kingdom of England existed from 927 until 1707, so for a period of 780 years, whereas the United Kingdom has been in existence for about 307 years but is now faltering under the multifaceted pressure of globalisation, regionalism, economic decline and political devolution on the celtic fringes which has left England completely high and dry.
English nationalism is not as I have attempted to briefly sketch here - a simple matter.
It isn't simple now and it has never been simply a question of racial or ethnic integrity, in that sense the situation in England is much more akin to America than such ethnically homogenous countries as say Japan, or both of the Korea's at the other extreme.
As DNA studies alone have clearly shown, all notions of race and ethnicity are social constructs but obviously very significant ones, particularly in England at the present time for a whole combination of reasons.
England has had to reinvent itself in the wake of political devolution in the UK since 1999 which has given rise to a Scottish Parliament (which had previously gone into voluntary liquidation in 1707) a Welsh Assembly and a National Assembly for Northern Ireland.
The UK parliament in London comprises of elected representatives from all parts of United Kingdom that are making laws for England over which we the citizens of this country have no control, while the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have no accountability to anyone for the decisions they make about England alone because they do not apply to their own electorates at home and have no effect upon their popularity with the voters that elect them to Westminster.
The British unwritten constitution resembles something from Alice in Wonderland fully replete with grandiose theatricals, but with no real substance and set against the now imminent prospect of Scottish Independence (or at the very least devolution-max) it is increasingly meaningless and has sadly descended further into the realms of the absurd.
So here are the basic fundamentals of English nationalism, a concept many right-thinking people shrink away from because of the risk that it might sound a bit fascistic. No such qualms automatically attach to Celtic nationalisms you will note, but when uttered by English nationalists suddenly the terms become suspect?... So I think we have to be clear about a few things.
First is that English nationalism, if it is to represent the spirit of the nation cannot be anything other than multicultural. All of England's history demands that and it is indelibly inscribed upon the very bedrock of the people as reflected in the origins and the evolution of the English language. That is to say, it is and must be a nationalism that recognises it co-exists with many other nationalisms and is not afraid to embrace ethnic and cultural diversity in a spirit of mutual respect and tolerance. Its the English way.
Xenophobia is not only unpatriotic but profoundly ahistorical, as the 20th century demonstrated in England and indeed across all of Britain, fascism has been rightly regarded as a rather continental excess of sentimental irrationality.... or if not - just downright evil.
Here is a link to a 2012 pamphlet on English political self determination called The Dog That Finally Barked; England as an Emerging Political Community a discussion paper published by the Institute for Public Policy Research.
http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/02/dog-that-finally-barked_englishness_Jan2012_8542.pdf
England was the First and is Now the Last Colony of the British Empire
The most pressing political issue in England today is the question of Home Rule. It is clear from the experience of the Scots that we will never get anywhere until England has its own parliament which in my view, must be located just about anywhere other than in London. England is very strongly regional and its regions must be represented fairly in the English parliament which is impossible unless it establishes a seat well away from Westminster and all the trappings of the failed British state.
The English comprise of everyone who lives in England irrespective of cultural or ethnic background and whose interests are bound up with future of the country in Europe and in the world. Our closest political allies are the Scots, Welsh and Irish separatists, it is yet another irony that we are perhaps now more united in our desire to achieve local autonomy than we were as constituents of this outdated imperial throw-back that is the UK today.
The constitutional form of an independent England I would prefer is a republic with greatly devolved powers to the localities, but whatever form a reinvented England takes, it will have its own interests within the wider European community and on a regional basis so that a direct link between let's say the English West Midlands and the Spanish region of Catalonia would be possible without any direct reference to, or involvement of either Spain or the United Kingdom.
A Europe of confederated regions, or to use EU-speak full blown subsidiarity and devolution of decision making to the most appropriate level, a Europe of the regions of which England will one day have a place in its own right. I suggest that this is the model for English nationalism, which is more or less indistinguishable from English regionalism which gives us Geordies, Scousers, Brummies and a whole host of other local allegencies, identities and rivalries (especially in sport).
There is a new national agenda for England which has nothing directly to do with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland nor anywhere else for that matter, whether an idependent England would apply to join the British Commonwealth would be a matter for debate and discussion. Of course it is quite possible that the secession of England from the Union would cause the implosion of the Commonwealth and the fizzling out of any last vestiges of a long gone empire anyway.
The people of England cannot continue to have no meaningful political voice within Britain and Europe, there is a cultural revolution gaining impetus in this country that has been forced to stop ignoring its own history and culture and to seriously question who are the English and what is England all about?
Some of what I am referring to is captured here in a song, A Place Called England performed (a touch ironically in Antwerp, Belgium) by its composer Maggie Holland. It is an anthem of the pastoral revolution with roots as deep as the 17th century Diggers, its about gardening and allotments growing produce... which in a supermarket economy and consumer culture like ours, is I think a revolutionary act in itself. Enjoy!
"Here's two cheers for the crazy Diggers,
now their hour shall come around;
We shall plant the seed they saved us,
common wealth and common ground."
This really is a great "summing up" of the historical legacy of immigration, invasion, consolidation and transition that make up the history of England, AA! One could imagine you giving this essay as part of a lecture on the need for the English Parliament.
ReplyDeleteI had thought about how England had only 19 days(!) in 1066, AD, without being under the control of a foreign threat--in other words, no time at all.
The most interesting part of this to me is the theme of immigration that has sustained the English language and culture into a very diverse and rich tapestry spun together since the decades before the Christian Era to this very time.
Those who stand against the idea of continuing this tradition seem not to heed this legacy, one that, I would argue, has only strengthened the cause of England as a distinct nation--one not defined by what the people in Scotland or Northern Ireland would want it to be but as the people who make up over eighty percent of the population of the islands rightly want to evolve into.
This outstanding "paper" that has drawn together seemingly all of the high points of British history as regards the constitution of England from a royal colony of European powers to a great empire and now as a part of an evolving (hopefully) into a more democratic, less hierarchical and inclusive nation. It is , as you say, the English Way!
Thanks for your comments here Doug. I had feared that this post was getting to lecture length and a bit long for the blogosphere, so thanks again for your encouraging remarks.
ReplyDeleteI think one point that should be in there if there had been enough space is that when Engla Land was inhabited by an influx of Anglo-Saxons the population of England has been estimated to have been well under 2 million - compared with around 50 odd million today. The implications of that is that this influx was into comparatively sparsely inhabit areas and wasn't always violent by any means, not a matter of invasion but one of settlement.
Another factor that one of the earliest incomers were the Jutes from what is now Denmark suggests they had more in common with the Danes than the other Germanic tribes that followed them, but are still counted as part of the Anglo-Saxon occupation. The Jutes were restricted to Kent, but they illustrate the patchwork nature of the demography which mirrors the same patern in the landscape, which has been a feature here and elsewhere since the neolithic 'cairnfields'. From the Bronze Age the Celtic field system comprising small enclosed fields have been a common feature across Britain. However, this is less true in Mercia in the English Midlands which adopted the more Continental open field system divided into furlong strips (selions) - a development initially pioneered by the Romans. This was a prominent feature of central England which differs from the previously indiginous "pocket handkerchief" field system more common in the southeast and southwest.
So we are not only seeing the blood curdling battles of opposing populations hacking each other to pieces, but agricultural innovations which remained in place until the 18th century enclosures changed everything in most but not all places across the land.
Obviously this reading of English history accentuates the positive, but is no less a valid assessment than those interpretations that concentrate on warfare and violence of which throughout the so-called Dark Ages there seems to have been plenty.
I think it is at a different degree of magnification where the 'bigger picture' of what you most aptly term "the historical legacy of immigration, invasion, consolidation and transition that make up the history of England" is derived from Doug. I am setting the clock here to before the Neolithic which also came about after a period of migration to these lands in prehistory.
At the end of the Mesolithic about 4,000 BC, there may have been around 3,000 people in Britain. At the beginning of the Bronze Age circa 2,500 BC, the population has been estimated at 20,000 and rising. By 100 BC there may have been around 250,000 people in Britain, which had risen to 500,000 by 50 BC.
So Britain had experienced inward migration and a subsequent population boom whereby the British population is estimated to have doubled in the just the 50 years prior to the Roman's arrival in 55 BC.
Any English nationalism not cognizent of these facts is bound to be distorted by ahistorical parochialism which transforms it from science to legend, the defining characteristic of fascism with all the errors and catastrophe's that is created by such pseudo-scientific mythologies and over-emotional claptrap.
Thanks again for adding to the discussion of this topic Doug, your contribution is as ever, much appreciated.
Thank you, AA.
DeleteOne does have to be aware of the ultra-nationalist and, sometimes, racial sloganeering that finds its way into the course of examining past cultures, one that your "bigger picture" presentation of migration and population patterns aptly refutes.
This, as you point out, is no less true in the retelling of "Manifest Destiny" expansionism in the "pioneer" period of the United States, a vision of EuroAmerican supremacy mythology that has only really been seriously questioned over here in my lifetime, with the hard won success of the Civil Rights Movement and its adoption by Native American and Hispanic groups.
Below is a link to a link for an article in "The East Anglic Daily Times" (my favorite newspaper for the latest on the scientific links between puritanism and excessive rain) regarding some recent excavations from the Sixth Century AD Anglo-Saxon kingdom near the site of the famous unearthing in 1939 of the Sutton Hoo ship.
http://archaeology.org/news/1892-140311-sutton-hoo-village
I've had to think about this issue, anyhow, now that I've thought, this is the way I see it.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you analyze the situation and put into words the nonexistent concept of the English identity. I think I'm particularly aware of this because I was (am) English and I remember the bewilderment I felt on moving from the south coast of England to the north east coast of Scotland. I found the 'separateness' of the Scottish people very difficult to understand. They referred to themselves as Scottish and to me as English and they had this notion of differentness that I had never considered before. It wasn’t that I disagreed with their notion of nationhood, or that I genuinely believed we were all part of one big united country. It was just that I, like most other English people at the time, had simply not thought about it. At no time in my life, either during formal education or during my life in general, had I ever read or been taught about our separate and unique identities, our distinct histories our different paths. In my somewhat simplistic state of mind, Britain and England were fully interchangeable; the two words meant the same thing. Like many other people I knew I referred to the UK Parliament as the English Parliament and to the UK Government as the English Government. Looking back to that time, about 25 years ago, I’m pretty damn horrified at my ignorance but coming from that place of ignorance, I can really understand why there is no specifically English identity. It’s because until very recently the English had no need of a separate identity, if asked their identity they would say English not British. The unspoken, unthought-of belief was that every one in the UK was English; London was the capitol of England and somehow ranked above the other rather vague capitols of different regions of the country. I knew nothing of the wars waged between the Scots and the English or the continual raids by England into Wales. I think I had this ill defined notion that Scotland (and probably Wales) used to be a barbaric land of barren cold wasteland fought over by uncivilized clans and warmongering tribes before the intervention of the English, at which point every one became English and lived happily ever after. Now if you have a nation of people who don’t realize their country is only one of several governed by the same Government, why would they need to voice their separateness? If they don’t see difference, they have no inclination to celebrate that difference.
The other reason that springs to mind is something you talked about. The fact that the original five independent regions of England became one united nation under one monarch encourages the English belief that the UK is all one country. The distinction between the merging of regions into England and the merging of countries into the UK is very blurred in the minds of many English.
Then nationalism within the UK become very vocal and very visible. The English; who had not previously identified themselves as being in anyway different from any one else in the UK, suddenly find themselves in the middle of a rising tide of nationalism, without a separate identity of their own.
I also think the fact that the Government is based permanently in London and does not rotate between the separate countries of the UK encourages the English to view that parliament and government as their own. The way the English see this is; why would they want another ‘English’ government when they already have their own government which is bigger, better and more powerful than all the other governments across the UK?
Anyhow, these are my thoughts on the separate English identity, or lack of. What exactly anyone can do to instill a sense of English identity I don’t know, except that if, (when), the other countries of the UK gain political independence the English will be forced to consider exactly who they are and what their role is, until then, I think there will always be a problem.
Thanks for your comments Loretta, your perspective of being an English person in Scotland adds another dimension to the discussion. Your experience of the "separateness" of the Scots who you went to live with I think demonstrates the general absense of an English identity at that time I guess for many of us who grew up in England. I lived for a few months in Aberdeen in the mid 70s so I know what you mean, although Aberdeen at that time was a lot more cosmopolitan than I suspect Arbroath was or is now. Aberdeen of course was an oil boom town in the 70s so not typical of Scotland as a whole, more like a miniature Dallas with granite... I don't know about now, its been a long time since I was last there.
DeleteHaving lived in Wales as well, plus a number of ex-patriot communities in the Middle East, I think my sense of Englishness came about fairly early on really in my teens and early 20s. A major reason for that was that I am from a family with an Anglo-Saxon (fair haired, blue eyed) side and a very distinct Welsh (dark haired, brown eyed) side too. The family morphology is different for each strand, the Germanic and the Celt, my elder brother has some hybrid features but is mainly Celt my younger brother is cpmpletely Welsh looking. So much so that when I moved to Cardiff in the 90s I kept thinking I was seeing him in the street, everything about him is Welsh, but everything about me is Anglo-Saxon, so I was aware of this Englishness and a difference between me and the matriarchal Welsh side of the family.
I also have close family ties in Ireland and spent a lot of the 80s and 90s in Dublin, or on the west coast in Sligo and in the 'Gaeltacht' Irish speaking areas of Donegal.
If anyone has any doubt about their Englishness I strongly recommend they visit Ireland where it is a cross we must bear manfully....or womanfully... whichever the case may be.
Being a political animal myself I engaged in the sort of conversations my Dad told me never to have about religion and politics as well as having the craic of course.
I have been aware of my Anglo-Saxon heritage and the risk of being dismissed as a WASP... because I'm guilty as charged, although I am not a protestant, nor even a christian now I do acknowledge the influence religous non-conformity has had on the the make-up of the English 'character'...and me.
I think these notions have been further honed nowadays in me and in others in England by devolution since in Scotland and Wales in 1999.
Nevertheless deconstructing the Battle of the Boyne in a way that confronts the romantic nationalism of Irish popular culture is a good way to cut your Englishness teeth I think, so long as it takes place in a Dublin pub and you are surrounded by a (more or less friendly) Fenian horde (lol)....So I do think that Institute for Public Policy Research are essentially right...the English political community has now become 'The Dog That Finally Barked'...it is an idea whose time has come and people are waking up to the implications of this Englishness and having a political identity separate to Britain. The battle for what that identity is I think what is now taking place.
Thanks for your points Loretta :-)
I don't know who the English think they are and I wouldn't dream of telling them, but I am Cornish and have been brought up to thinking so. It would seem I'm not alone: School census shows rise in children who are Cornish: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16391310
ReplyDeleteIn the introduction to his famous 'Anglica Historia', first published in 1535, the Italian scholar Polydore Vergil 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.'
Elsewhere, Vergil observed that Cornwall was the smallest of the three distinctive territorial units that made up the kingdom of England. This was a view that continued to be widely held until well into the 17th century. Writing in 1616, Arthur Hopton stated that:
'England is ...divided into 3 great Provinces, or Countries ...every of them speaking a several and different language, as English, Welsh and Cornish.'
Remarks made by a series of foreign visitors to England during the Tudor period make it clear that, if Cornwall was commonly regarded as almost a separate country, then the Cornish were commonly regarded as a separate ethnic group. Lodovico Falier, an Italian diplomat at the Court of Henry VIII, had no doubts on this score. 'The language of the English, Welsh and Cornish men is so different that they do not understand each other', Falier informed a correspondent in 1531 - adding that it was possible to distinguish the members of each group by their alleged 'national characteristics'. Thus 'the Welshman is sturdy, poor, adapted to war and sociable', he observed, while 'the Cornishman is poor, rough and boorish; and the Englishman mercantile, rich, affable and generous.'
Seven years later, Gaspard de Coligny Chatillon - the French Ambassador in London - showed that he, too, was aware of this ethnic split. The kingdom of England was by no means a united whole, he wrote back to his political masters, for it also 'contains Wales and Cornwall, natural enemies of the rest of England, and speaking a [different] language'. Perceptions remained very much the same throughout the rest of the 16th century. Following the death of Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I, in 1603, the Venetian ambassador wrote that the late queen had ruled over five different 'peoples': 'English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish ...and Irish'.
that's an interesting reply, so do you think the Cornish should also have an independence referendum ?? And what about the language, I remember reading that the last native Cornish speaker died a good long while ago, is the language being spoken and learned again??
DeleteActually, when I first came to Scotland I remember thinking how similar it was to Cornwall, except its much warmer there of course.
I have no argument with the points you make here Fulub, I mentioned Cornwall as a celtic region of the British archipelago in my post above. Cornwall is one of the oldest industrial mining areas on these islands with tin mining dating back to 2000 BC. Greek historian Diodorus of Sicily certainly spoke highly of the Cornish when in around 1 BC he wrote:-
Delete"They that inhabit the British promontory of Belerion by reason of their converse with strangers are more civilised and courteous to strangers than the rest are. These are the people that prepare the tin, which with a great deal of care and labour, they dig out of the ground, and that being done the metal is mixed with some veins of earth out of which they melt the metal and refine it. Then they cast it into regular blocks and carry it to a certain island near at hand called Ictis for at low tide, all being dry between there and the island, tin in large quantities is brought over in carts."
High praise indeed from an Ancient Greek man of letters Fulub...I hope nothing much has changed with regard to us emmets since then.
Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion Fulub.
There is a lot of nonsense said about the last native speaker of Cornish. What in fact is being referred to is the last native monolingual Cornish speaker. I hope you can appreciate the difference. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_speaker_of_the_Cornish_language
ReplyDeleteAs for Cornish today I'd suggest you checkout Maga the Cornish language partnership: http://www.magakernow.org.uk/ and the Movyans Skolyow Meythrin - bilingual nursery schools: http://movyansskolyowmeythrin.yolasite.com/
Independence Vs Self-determination. Lets move past the idea of a sovereign independent nation-state shall we? Such a thing probably hasn't existed for quite some time now. Decision making power at the level most appropriate for the decisions being made. Subsidiarity in other words interests me more than talk of independence.
Even if an rUK breaks from the European Union the idea that it would be a totally independent 'sovereign' state is laughable. Outside of the EU, if anything, an rUK would be even more vulnerable to the massive economic blocks that rule the waves today.
Anyway, It's often said that there is little or no interest within what is commonly considered England for 'regional' devolution. This is not quite true however. 50,000 people signed a petition calling for a Cornish Assembly in 2002. At the time a Cornwall Council opinion poll put support for a Cornish assembly at around 55%. The petition was collected over a couple of months by some motivated volunteers before the age of social media. This 10% of our population met with the criteria set by Prescott for the government to investigate a 'regions' desire for devolution. New Labour decided to renege on this promise and ignore Cornish calls for an assembly. Various Liberal Democrat MP's for Cornwall have defended the idea of Cornish devolution as well as campaigning for Cornish national minority status, funding of the Cornish language and democratic accountability for the Duchy of Cornwall. Perhaps the last example of this being Dan Rogerson's Government of Cornwall Bill. It should also be noted that the Green party, amongst others, also supports Cornish devolution. The last PLASC data for Cornish schools showed that 46% of children would choose Cornish to describe their identity rather than English, British or some mixture.
The Cornish Constitutional Convention: http://www.cornishassembly.org/
The Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the Cornish: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59678181/Cornish-Minority-Report
Utter cobblers. English people are not mongrels. the racial make up of the ab origial Brions is amongst the most stable on earth . Successful invaders have merely dictated the terms of the peace with the people conquered.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anonymous for your contribution.. perhaps you'd like to expand on that?
Delete