British origins

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Thanks, Dana.

Am I right that Great Britain is the name of the entire island, England is the part of the island, a "country", not including Scotland and Wales, and The U.K. is the "country" that includes England, Scotland, and Wales? We tend to use them interchangeably.

It's a little confusing to be honest. 'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' mean almost the same thing but carry different connotations and come from different political designations.

Geographically: from wiki

Geographical terms:
The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and many smaller surrounding islands.
Great Britain is the largest island of the archipelago.[1][2][3]
Ireland is the second largest island of the archipelago and lies directly to the west of Great Britain.
The full list of islands in the British Isles includes over 1,000 islands,[4] of which 51 have an area larger than 20 km².

But, politically:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy occupying the island of Great Britain, the small nearby islands (but not the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands), and the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland. Usually, it is shortened to United Kingdom or the UK, though 'Britain' is also an officially recognised short form ('Great Britain' is not).[5][6]

The abbreviation GB is frequently used for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in international agreements, e.g. Universal Postal Union and Road Traffic Convention, as well as in the ISO 3166 country codes (GB and GBR).

Ireland is the sovereign republic occupying the larger portion of the island of Ireland. However, to distinguish the state from the island, or to distinguish either of these from Northern Ireland, it is also called "the Republic of Ireland" or simply "the Republic". Occasionally, its Irish-language name, Éire, will be used in an English-language context to distinguish it from "Northern Ireland", even though the word "Éire" directly translates as "Ireland".
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the four countries of the United Kingdom though they are also referred to as the constituent countries or, in sporting contexts, home nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are legal jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.[7]

Great Britain means the countries of England, Wales and Scotland considered as a unit.[6][8]

British Islands consists of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. These are the states within the British Isles that have the British monarch as head of state.

[Sundae]

Spex got it pretty much right though.

For example the longest river in the British Isles is not in the UK, or in Great Britain.
Quiz fiends and pedants take note!

And the UK competes separately in the Eurovision Song Contest to Ireland (Eire).
And their currency is the Euro as opposed to their old currency the Punt.
The United Kingdom all use the Pound (Sterling) even if it does look different in Scotland. Seriously - they print their own bank notes.

Note on the song contest - Jedward came EIGHTH! Out of the whole of Europe! Streets ahead of Blue. Beggars belief. I did type a whole post about this, but lost it when the Cellar went down, and was too frustrated by the contest to retype. I'm still quite cross.

You say Europe, I say cross.

Anyway, listen to the scholars, not the cross people.

[DanaC]

Y'know, it's funny, I was thinking about this very thing the other day :p

I've been watching Camelot, the new series by Starz, and completely loving it. One of the things I love about it is that it is the same story it has always been, just told a little differently. Much of it is derived from the 15th-century Morte d'Arthur, but tales of Arthur go back so much further. Many of the names in these tales wold have been recognisable to someone living here in the 7th century.

I love that we still tell ourselves these tales.

[DanaC]

right. This isnt my fault. Talking about this stuff has put me in a camelot mood and that's just the way it is...so I am officially hijacking this thread for a brief Camelot interlude...

In the episode The Lady of the Lake, the programme gives a very different telling of this famous part of the legend. There are two clips. One shows what happens, and the second shows how it is told.

First clip: Merlin has travelled to a great sword maker to ask him to make a sword for the new king. He arrives just as the swordmaker is completing his most perfect sword, the zenith of his craft. But Merlin has a vision that shows the swordmaker killing Arthur with the sword, and so is adamant that the he will not go anywhere near his king. They argue and it turns into a fight, and Merlin, who tries to avoid using magic because of the cost it exacts loses control and kills the swordmaker.

But the swordmaker has a daughter, called Excalibur, who witnesses her father's death:



Merlin leaves the scene, guiltridden. Later in the episode he returns to Camelot, and presents Arthur with his new sword, and tells the following story: (overlaid on the death scene in this clip)

[Trilby]

This is just all so great!

Dana - Ted Hughes wrote a book about the Celtic holdouts in your area "The Remains of Elmet" - have you read it?

He hailed from your area as I'm sure you know.

eta: it's a book of poems.

[DanaC]

I haven't actually. I'll look that up, thanks!

[SamIam]

Wow! What an interesting way to start my morning. I have read some history of England and find it very intriguing. I started off in high school with Thomas Costain's series of books on the the Plantagenets. I even wrote an honors paper on the question of Richard III and the events on Bosworth Field.

I think it's a shame that US high schools teach almost nothing about the history of what is the ancestorial home for many of us. English history is fascinating and well worth a trip to Amazon or the library to find out more.

Dana, do you have any suggestions on which books provide the best over view of English history?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by SamIam

I started off in high school with Thomas Costain's series of books on the the Plantagenets. I even wrote an honors paper on the question of Richard III and the events on Bosworth Field.

Side note - when I lived in Leicester my local cheap pub was The Last Plantagenet. We called it the Plant or the Last Plant.

In was in honour of Richard III of course.
Getting a third class degree is "getting a Richard".

[DanaC]

I haven't really read any overview books of English history per se, so probably not the best to advise on that. I can suggest some good overviews of particular periods though.

There's a really good book that looks at the period from the end of Roman Britain, to the Norman Conquest, called The Anglo-Saxons, by James campbell, Peter Wormauld and another guy whose name escapes me now. it's more of a cultural investigation than anything though.

My personal favourites for the Anglo-Saxon period are all pretty out of date now. Anything by Michael Wood is accessible and interesting. He's a brilliant historian with a real passion for his subject. He's branched into various areas, but Anglo-Saxon England and the period after the invasion are where he made his name. He's also done some magnificent history documentaries about the period.

For the period after the invasion, I'd say Bartlett's 'England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225. The close of this period is arguably when we became 'English' again, and our monarchs began to identify themselves as Native English (after the loss of French lands under John).

My personal favourite for the history of the Anglo-Saxons is very, very out of date: Sir Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, first published in 1943 (I think) and revised several times. The edition I read was the 1967 revision. It was one of the first serious history text books I read from start to finish, long before I ever decided to go and study it. I'd got it as a free gift from a book club years before and never done more than looked at the maps (with all the anglo-saxon names). Felt like an achievement to read the whole thing.

It's way off base on a few things (we now know thanks to modern techniques like dna studies and the explosion of archeology) but it's a bloody good read. He treats his subject with care and compassion and occasional humour. A classic text of the period. I have enormous affection for it.

Probably the best overall history would be Simon Schama's History of Britain in three volumes. I haven't read it, but I liked the tv series it came from.

[DanaC]

Oh, see you've gone and done it again. I've gone off on a Michael Woods youtube mission...

Clip time. One of my favourite ever documentary series. Collectively known as In Search of the Dark Ages, it's a collection of standalone documentaries about various real or imagined (in the case of Arthur) 'Dark Age' figures that forms a broad history of dark age Britain. Looks really dated now lol. Woods is still a brilliant presenter though. This is the first of them: In Search of Offa, the first English 'king' I think. (remember I mentioned him earlier?) which aired in the late 70s.








This guy is why I fell in love with history :p

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Probably the best overall history would be Simon Schama's History of Britain in three volumes. I haven't read it, but I liked the tv series it came from.

I read them. Very very good. I didn't retain all the detail, but they filled in many gaps, some I didn't know I had.
Lost them in my move from Leicester to London though

PS - Never ask a student a question on their chosen subject unless you are prepared for proper education.

PPS - reread the thread and had used the word "scholar" far too many times. I rarely get the chance you0 see, and I do like it. Have changed it in this thread, in case the repetition police get me.

[Rhianne]

Originally Posted by Sundae

For example the longest river in the British Isles is not in the UK, or in Great Britain.
Quiz fiends and pedants take note!

Super-pedants (not me!) argue that it's not a fair competition as the Shannon flows through at least three sizable loughs, Lough Derg alone is about 25 miles long, more than the difference with the Severn.

[be-bop]

Or even the death of Elizabeth I which joined England with Scotland (a link they are trying to sever. Go on then! See if you can manage free prescriptions and student fees without us! Bye-bye, bye-bye...)


Tut tut Sundae you're sounding like a Daily Wail reader, still like most of the English people i know you still can't get your head around devolution can you?
It's a block grant Scotland gets, to spend on how the Scottish Government and the Scottish people through the elected process decide on what is their priority.we're not naughty schoolchildren spending out pocket money on sweeties,Scots contribute as well, we pay tax and national insurance into the pot.
Read this and be educated

http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/myth.html

[SamIam]

@ Dana - thanks! I knew I could count on you. I have added your suggestions to my "to read" list.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by be-bop

Tut tut Sundae you're sounding like a Daily Wail reader, still like most of the English people i know you still can't get your head around devolution can you?

Actually I am interested in politics and I think I do understand devolution. I don't like Alex Salmond but I have a gut reaction to many forms of Nationalism. Were I Scottish I might feel differently, as they are a left leaning Party and I don't really have an argument with their politics in general.

It's a block grant Scotland gets, to spend on how the Scottish Government and the Scottish people through the elected process decide on what is their priority. Scots contribute as well, we pay tax and national insurance into the pot.

Of course I know that Scots pay too, and that money you pay in is spent in the way your elected representatives choose. It was a light-hearted comment. I have extreme free-prescription and free-University envy.

Read this and be educated.

It was reasonably interesting. For something over 20 years old.
Didn 't really tell me anything startling.

Am I educated now?

we're not naughty schoolchildren spending out pocket money on sweeties,

You got me with that one though. Really made me laugh. Yes, that is the attitude of papers like the Hate Mail. Still a bit miffed you classed me as a reader though. I think that's the first time anyone has said that to me! I don't mind being lumped in with the other ignorant English people you know, but I do have some standards!

I actually have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about coming from Bucks. It's fine living back here, but when I lived elsewhere I cringed when the question "Where do you come from?" came up. I could see people reassessing me because I was born and brought up in a "rich" county. It bugged me that people assumed I must live on my own land, probably have electric gates and a swimming pool and watch polo at the weekend. Nice work if you can get it I suppose.