Today I watched a show on the History Channel. This particular episode was focused on the Saxons. It seems that the Saxons almost conquered Briton. The surviving Britons were mostly relegated to Wales (Saxon word for stranger) and a little area west of, or the western tip of, Wessex. The eastern part of Saxon territory was called Anglia. I'm guessing that Anglia is the original form of the word England. Maybe a pre-Normandised version? The Vikings invaded and conquered almost all of Saxony. All that was left was King Alfred and his Wessex Kingdom. He was able to drive back the Vikings and even force them to convert to Christianity. It looked like the English Island was almost a three way split between the remnants of Briton, the Saxons and the Vikings when the Normans invaded.

I remember reading a forum thread about English players modding their games to have British Empire instead of England as the civ's name. Or was it the other way around? Don't quite remember. After watching this show I started wondering why there was an empire called the British Empire long after the Britons seem to have been defeated? Why wasn't it the Great Saxon Empire or the English Empire?

Today I watched a show on the History Channel. This particular episode was focused on the Saxons. It seems that the Saxons almost conquered Briton. The surviving Britons were mostly relegated to Wales (Saxon word for stranger) and a little area west of, or the western tip of, Wessex. The eastern part of Saxon territory was called Anglia. I'm guessing that Anglia is the original form of the word England. Maybe a pre-Normandised version? The Vikings invaded and conquered almost all of Saxony. All that was left was King Alfred and his Wessex Kingdom. He was able to drive back the Vikings and even force them to convert to Christianity. It looked like the English Island was almost a three way split between the remnants of Briton, the Saxons and the Vikings when the Normans invaded.

I remember reading a forum thread about English players modding their games to have British Empire instead of England as the civ's name. Or was it the other way around? Don't quite remember. After watching this show I started wondering why there was an empire called the British Empire long after the Britons seem to have been defeated? Why wasn't it the Great Saxon Empire or the English Empire?
Perhaps because the guy who coined the phrase "British Empire" back in the reign on Elisabeth I was Welsh?

John Dee, Renaissance polymath/astrologer, is said to have first used the phrase "Imperium Britannorum", "the Empire of the British". And Dee was Welsh. And to a Welshman like Dee it wasn't too far fetched as the "Tudor" dynasty had started out named "Twdwr", as it was also Welsh.:)

"British" is also helpful to paper over the fact that this political entity came about through the efforts of the English slapping everyone else silly.

I think in today's world a "Briton" and a "British person" are a little different in meaning. "Briton," at least as I have seen it used, is only used when describing the pre-Anglish inhabitants of the isles. A British person, and thus British Empire, of course conversely would only mean in relation to the British Isles.

The empire received its name from the island, not the people.

I'm pretty sure that after the act of union you'd have been very unpopular outside of England if you kept referring to it as the English Empire, especially considering how many Irish, Scots and Welsh served in the army protecting said empire.

Perhaps because the guy who coined the phrase "British Empire" back in the reign on Elisabeth I was Welsh?

John Dee, Renaissance polymath/astrologer, is said to have first used the phrase "Imperium Britannorum", "the Empire of the British". And Dee was Welsh. And to a Welshman like Dee it wasn't too far fetched as the "Tudor" dynasty had started out named "Twdwr", as it was also Welsh.:)

"British" is also helpful to paper over the fact that this political entity came about through the efforts of the English slapping everyone else silly.

So the Britons came back into power?

I once read on the newspaper that recent genetic researchs suggest that the main component of the genetic stock of the english is of pre-Saxon origin, that is, celtic/briton. I don't know if it's true or not, though.

British only means from Great Britain.

Brittons are the people from Brittany, a region in Western France.

British only means from Great Britain.

Brittons are the people from Brittany, a region in Western France.

They were talking about Britons, not Brittons. Britons were the original inhabitants the island Great Britain before the Roman invasion and the arrival the Angles, Jutes et al ...

British only means from Great Britain.

Brittons are the people from Brittany, a region in Western France.

I see them called "Bretons" some, but not "Brittons" really.

I believe British should apply to all of British origin after 1707. That includes the Yankees.

British only means from Great Britain.

Brittons are the people from Brittany, a region in Western France.
Who moved there from Wales.:)

Britton/Brython were the original Celtic speaking inhabitants of the British Isles, with a language and society very much like that of the Gauls.

They became the Cymru once pushed into Wales, and the Breton as they spilled out of their islands. (Though I believe there has been a lively French discussions as to how much continuity back to the Gauls there are with the Bretons.)

The outline of British history mentioned in the OP has truth to it, but it's a bit of a myth really. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and other Germanic types who invaded in the fifth century and thereafter didn't displace the Romano-British in what is now England; they conquered and mingled with them, which is why, as luiz points out, the Anglo-Saxon stock of Britons today is relatively low. And of course there have been waves of immigration ever since; for example, it's been estimated that 75% of all British people today are descended, in part, from Huguenot refugees who came here in the seventeenth century. Talk of "Saxons" and "Britons" (as in pre-Saxon people) in a modern or even a late medieval context is largely meaningless. For example, John Dee may have been Welsh, but that didn't make him a Celtic-Romano-Briton, any more than Gordon Brown is a Pict.

The name "England", for the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms taken collectively as opposed to the other kingdoms in what are now Wales and Scotland, was coined by Bede. Bede effectively invented the English nationality. Before then, they generally called themselves simply Saxons and the different kingdoms didn't regard themselves as a single cultural unit. So if it weren't for Bede, we'd be living in Saxland.

"Briton" can refer to anyone from Britain, but it's true that it's rarely used. It's also true that the name of the country today comes from the name of the island rather than the name of its inhabitants.

For more on this, play my scenario about the Anglo-Saxons! Yes, Civ is educational!

I see them called "Bretons" some, but not "Brittons" really.

Yeah, that's what I thought too but I didn't say anything. Brittany is Bretagne in French, Marla, yes? What do you call people from Bretagne in French?

Yeah, that's what I thought too but I didn't say anything. Brittany is Bretagne in French, Marla, yes? What do you call people from Bretagne in French?People from Brittany are called Breton in French, just like the ancient tribe of Breton (Britton). I imagined it was the same in English but obviously there's been slight orthographic evolution across centuries.

Well, as you've said Brittany is called Bretagne in French, and Great Britain is called Grande Bretagne in French. The very reason why Britain is called great is because there's a smaller one in Western France. Both Britain and Brittany have the same semantic root. During Barbarian invasions, Britons moved from Britain to Brittany, explaining the similar semantics.

Anyway, the use of the word "British" instead of "English" is only a way to encompass the whole island (including Welshmen and Scotts). It has nothing to do with reviving any Celtic pride or anything like that. The reason why British has widespread was only as a sign of oppenness and recognition of the specificity of Welsh and Scottish cultures.

10th cent. Anglo-Saxon kings tended to call themselves "King of the English" but also "King of all Britain"; High Kings of the Saxons of Britain called themselves the Bretwalda ... there were English, but only later was there an England. So when England came to be defined, it was either the same as Britain, or it was the part of Britain where English was spoken.

Britannia was also used to mean Wales in Latin until the Norman era, when that became confusing for the Frenchies who ruled England, and they borrowed the English word and Latinised it as Wallia.

The English realm became identified (among the English at least) as the successor state to Arthurian Britain. The Anglo-Norman poet Wace said, "The Island once called Britain, is now called England" (l'isle jadis appelé Bretainc, ore Engleterre).

The Welsh tradition claimed descent from Brutus ("Mr Britain"), who had three sons Locrinus ("Mr England", from the Welsh word for England), Camber (Mr Wales) and Albanactus (Mr Scotsman), but the English claimed descent from Saxon invaders and the Scots from Irish invaders, so it never caught on; and besides, Locrinus represented Loegria, not the English people, who were always regarded as invaders, even when they had been on Britain for over a millennium.

The term "Briton" until the 17th century almost always meant a Welsh person. There was simply no conception that peoples on the islands had a common origin; any chance of a united Britain would have to be based on English supremacy until ideological changes which took place between the early 1600s and the early 1800s.

Also, for the Scots, geography was confusing about Britain and many other things. The 15th century Lowland Scottish historian Walter Bower says that "The Forth or Scottish Sea, divides Britain from Scotland". It was a controversy in the Middle Ages if Scotland-proper was on the island of Britain, or separate. Scotland itself was not always (and never at all until the mid-13th cent.) thought of as modern Scotland. It was the land north of the Forth, called Scotia and Albania. The south-east, "Laudonia" (Lothian), was part of England, though ruled by the Scottish king, and the south-west ... "Galloway" ... was a separate entirely. So Fantosme wrote that

La pute gent, ke Damnedeu maldie,
Les Gavelens, ki d'aveir unt envie
E li Escot, qui sunt in Albanie
Ne portent fei a Deu, le fiz Marie

In anglice:

The wretched race, on whom lies damnation,
The Galwegians, who are envious of wealth;
And the Scots, who are in Scotland [north of the Forth],
Have no belief in God, the son of Mary.

Anyways, before the 17th cent. the idea that being "in Britain" united them with the English as a people would have been preposterous to Welsh person, and confusing to a Scots person. In the case of Scots, the portion of them who spoke English in the 17thand 18th century did identify themselves with the English, but it had nothing to do with "Britain", but rather shared English ethnicity. English-speakers in Wales called themselves English up until the 20th century (and some still do)

Britain and Britishness are still very thinly rooted concepts today. For the English, Britishness and Englishness are pretty much the same, so they will interchangeably refer to themselves by both terms ... but this has nothing to do with accepting a new Britishness, but rather adding a new term and continuing their Greater English identity which derived from the early middle ages. Welsh people who call themselves British today likewise are continuing an early medieval tradition, only since the early 20th cent. they've forgotten that the English can't be Britons. And the Scots hardly consider British as an identity at all; it's just a neat device for becoming English whenever it's appropriate or useful.

Almost no-one in Britain considered "British" to be a national identity at all until the 20th (or at least the 19th) century; the UK was just a state with four nations (or more cynically three nations under one nation); no British started sport in the 19th cent. ever came up with a "British team", that would have been almost inconceivable; Britain wasn't a nation, it was a united monarchy [United Kingdom is not meaningless!].

In the 20th cent. continental Europeans have made the world redefine "nation" to equal "state", a ludicrous dogmatic notion which unfortunately seems to be getting accepted by everyone. Embarrassingly for the historically sensitive, now even some university professors treat states and "nation-states" as synonymous. :o

question for the Ukers here do you call your self by regions name or do you call yourself british?

Today I watched a show on the History Channel. This particular episode was focused on the Saxons. It seems that the Saxons almost conquered Briton. The surviving Britons were mostly relegated to Wales (Saxon word for stranger) and a little area west of, or the western tip of, Wessex.
What about Scotland? Most of present-day Scotland remained outside of Anglo-Saxon control, remaining under the control of the native Lowland Britons (Kingdom of Strathclyde) and Highland Quasi-British Picts (Kingdom of Alba). The Gaelic Scots (Kingdom of Dál Riata) did not come to control the country until several centuries later.

question for the Ukers here do you call your self by regions name or do you call yourself british?
Well, personally, I tend to think of myself "British", but I'm an exception (it comes from growing up in both Scotland and England to parents of each nationality). In Scotland, most people are Scots first, British second, and the same goes for the Welsh. In England it's a little more complicated- within the UK they're English, to non-UK nations they're more likely to be British (with occasional exceptions such as France, due to the historical, pre-Union English-French rivalry), although this can depend upon the individual.

question for the Ukers here do you call your self by regions name or do you call yourself british?

Anyone with any knowledge of the UK would not use the term "region" to refer to England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland; a "region" would be Yorkshire, or Angus, or Gwynedd, etc, etc.

To the vast majority of the English, UK and England are ideologically synonymous., so it doesn't make a difference unless the context is insular. I dunno about Welsh, but Scots are unlikely to think of themselves as British at all unless they have some biographical reason or have developed their own political ideology. In Norn Iron being "British" is usually a religious or community designation which distinguishes them from identical "Irish" people in other communities; it has little there to do with national identity.

I consider myself Welsh first and foremost, then British, then European =D.

"British" tends to be abit generic for me, when discussing where I come from (mostly because people tend to say.... "Wales, is that in England?" or "Wales, that's a town in England, right?

*head explodes*

On the whole, the English have never really sought to eradicate the Welsh people and make them "English" (although there have been a few instances of prejudice and cultural tension), despite us being "conquered", the general populace of England and Scotland still deems Wales a "country in all but name" (we're a principality).

I think you'd be hard pressed to hear an Englishman saying that the Welsh aren't patriotic about their identity, in fact we're are quite renown for it, despite our size.

Cymru am byth, mae hen wlad fy.... ;)

:cool:

I would probably tend to call myself British rather than English, but I wouldn't call myself either if Asians didn't always think I'm Australian. I think I primarily think of myself as European. I have very little sense of identity with Kent, which is where I'm actually from - I never even picked up the accent (thank God).

question for the Ukers here do you call your self by regions name or do you call yourself british?

British, but then I have for grandparents one each of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish, moved around so much I don't really identify with any part of the country, and have an incredibly boring and generic accent. (During international sporting events I'll support any of the UKs teams against Johnny foreigner, and just randomly shout during matches between the UKs teams ;)).

I might start calling myself a Londoner though, been here quite some time now.

What about Scotland? Most of present-day Scotland remained outside of Anglo-Saxon control, remaining under the control of the native Lowland Britons (Kingdom of Strathclyde) and Highland Quasi-British Picts (Kingdom of Alba). The Gaelic Scots (Kingdom of Dál Riata) did not come to control the country until several centuries later.


If I'm remembering correctly, the show depicted the Saxons territory reachig as far north as North Humbria. There was no or little mention of the Scots. I just looked at a map of the British Isles and Scotland extends farther North and West from North Humbria. So perhaps the Saxons didn't have much of an impact there. Scotland is bigger than I thought.

@ 6underground,

My thinking, as an American, is similiar: Californian > American (US) > American (continant).
The map I just looked at shows both Wales and Scotland as seperate entities. Its small print so I had to look closely.

American States were originaly meant to be sovereign or almost sovereign entities. Our Civil War pretty much clarified a State's rights vs. the Federal Government's. If the U.K. is a collection of Kingoms under one Kingdom, do they have a similiar idea.

Are there Scottish and Welsh Kings?

The UK is not a federation like the US or Germany; what effectively happened is that, first, one of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (Wessex) conquered or assimilated the others, creating England, and then the English proceeded to conquer or assimilate the other kingdoms around them (Scotland, Wales, and Ireland). It's not like the different kingdoms got together and decided to join up on an approximately equal basis (like the US) or even with one of them being dominant (like Germany).

There haven't been Scottish or Welsh kings since the Middle Ages, when the English conquered them. In fact, when Edward I of England defeated Llewelyn of Wales in 1282, that was when the last bit of the old Roman empire was finally lost by the Roman or pre-Roman inhabitants and fell into the hands of the post-Roman invaders. So you could say that, in a way, that is when the last vestiges of the western Roman empire ceased to exist - although of course the Welsh had long since ceased to resemble anything Roman.

The Anglo-Saxons did encroach into what is now Scotland, at least the southern parts. In fact, Edinburgh was founded by the Northumbrians (it's Edwin's Burgh).

@ 6underground,

My thinking, as an American, is similiar: Californian > American (US) > American (continant).
The map I just looked at shows both Wales and Scotland as seperate entities. Its small print so I had to look closely.

American States were originaly meant to be sovereign or almost sovereign entities. Our Civil War pretty much clarified a State's rights vs. the Federal Government's. If the U.K. is a collection of Kingoms under one Kingdom, do they have a similiar idea.

Are there Scottish and Welsh Kings?

Yes pretty much that system of breaking down geographic location. I don't mind at all being called British (if anything it's rather nice, because it's inclusive of all of us), but when someone calls me English, being synonymous with Britian I get pissed off. Not because I dislike English people or culture, but because Britain is composed of more native nationalities than English.

I'm sure you'd get equally annoyed if everyone kept saying "California, yeah, that's in Oregon, right?" :lol:

There are forms of devolution in the U.K that definitely point to nationality/kingdom in the form of parliaments and assembly. For instance, Scotland has its own parliament and Wales has an assembly. Because ales was conquered and Scotland wasn't, means we don't get a parliament.

However, since society is changing, I'm of the opinion (and so is the EU) that a parliament for Wales is inevitable, and rightfully so.

Wales has had several kings and princes through-out it's history, However Edward I pretty much saw to the end of them (if you catch my drift). Funnily enough however (and quite unpredictable), several centuries after being conquered, Owain Glyndŵr who was part of the English military (who was Welsh) turned against England due to a disagreement that resulted in the largest and most widespread Welsh rebellion in history. Accordingly he was proclaimed "Prince of Wales" and despite conducting one of Europe's longest guerilla campaigns in Europe and at one point invading England (!), numbers and resources were never on his side. He pretty much disappeared from history after that.

So it really goes to show that even after a prolonged period of time, a nation's populace can rise in the pursuit of self-autonomy.

Of course devolution is a big topic now, specifically what is known as the West Lothian Question (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nscotland328.xml). Scotland has been given its own parliament, and Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies - but there is no comparable body for England. The British parliament at Westminster effectively functions as both the parliament for the whole UK and the English parliament at the same time. Which means that Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster have more power over England than any English MPs have over Scotland or Wales. So many English people are annoyed at this and say England should have its own parliament too. Of course this is complicated by the fact that England dominates the UK anyway, so it's hardly as if the English are some oppressed, under-represented minority.

British/Swiss

I'm an International Guy so I almost Identify as European first. Regardless I will say I'm British and/or Scottish, it depends.

The WLQ is a fun one, the only way I see it being resolved is a devolved parliment to England etc, being easier to give than to take away....Of course they don't WANT it. *shrug*

I hope this isn't too off topic but then when did the English Channel acquire its name? Julius Caesar crossed it in 55BC but that can’t be what he called it.

I don't really have a regional identity as I orignally come from a peninsula that isn't any specific county and has ties to Wales, Ireland Liverpool and Cheshire. I also live now in Liverpool, and whilst I have a great deal of affinity with Scousers* and affection for Liverpool I don't really feel "Scouse". Parts of the peninsula were heavily involved in the invasion and conquest of Ireland and Wales and yet probably the majority of people whose family stretch back a few generations have relations from both places.

*Scouser is the name for a native of Liverpool

I hope this isn't too off topic but then when did the English Channel acquire its name? Julius Caesar crossed it in 55BC but that can’t be what he called it.

Wiki says 18th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel#Name), before that it being called the British Sea (which does have a nicer ring to it ;)).

@Privatehudson; how is The Wirral nowadays? any major changes? I haven't been there since '98 :).

before that it being called the British Sea (which does have a nicer ring to it )

Very interesting. It does sound nicer, though :goodjob:

@Privatehudson; how is The Wirral nowadays? any major changes? I haven't been there since '98 :).

Oh about the same really, still the same old mix of old and out of the way villages alongside the big urban areas. Its part of what I miss about the place, so many nice country walks and yet good shopping closeby too.

question for the Ukers here do you call your self by regions name or do you call yourself british?

Depends, as a man born in Scotland, with a Scottish mother and an English father and having living slighly more of my 26 years in England I am Scottish and English and British. There are times when I feel more Scottish and others when I feel more English and when I consider I've Welsh and Irish great-grandparents I can truely consider myself British.

In Scotland I'd call myself British and in England I'd call myself Scottish...

But if I'm not wanting to assert Scottishness I'd call myself a Yorkshireman having lived most my adult life there

:crazyeye:

Certain counties and cities in Britain, the inhabitants would probably class themselves as members of even ahead of English even though they are in England. Georgies and Yorkshiremen in particular and I think even Cornwall has a minor independence movement it being virtually cut off from most of Britain!

There haven't been Scottish or Welsh kings since the Middle Ages, when the English conquered them.

You call James I as being part of the Middle Ages?

Ah yes, forgot about that - I had the Welsh in mind at the time really.

You call James I as being part of the Middle Ages?
Better question- does he call James I English? :rolleyes:

even though the britons were defeated, werent the isles stil lcalled britannia, british isles, hence the name british?

Well as long as the topic of devolution in the UK is still up, I've always wondered, how exactly is it that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands function? I know they arn't full members of the country (Crown territories or something is'nt it?) Are there any moves to get them on equal terms with the rest of the country? Do they get any say in the Parliment?

Well as long as the topic of devolution in the UK is still up, I've always wondered, how exactly is it that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands function? I know they arn't full members of the country (Crown territories or something is'nt it?) Are there any moves to get them on equal terms with the rest of the country? Do they get any say in the Parliment?
Essentially, the "Crown Dependencies" function as autonomous countries, but the UK retains the responsibility for defence. They don't send MPs to the British Parliament, but Parliament may force legislation on them if it choose, although this is quite rare.
More detailed info can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependency).