# Unification of Britain: A History



## maxiogee

übermönch said:


> Why shouldn't, say, scots assimilate? You know, those unenglish mountainous-kilt wearing-whiskey drinkers with those horrible doodlesacks are kind of abnormal and unenglish, not?


Yes, but not unBritish.




> So, you say the eradication of celtic culture and language all over the british isles was a right thing to do and should be repeated on modern minorities?


 When did I say that?




> What do you mean by _"must we fund their preference not to assimilate"_?


If they don't and won't learn the local language must we fund the teaching of their ancestral one?




> From what I know _You (the ones you refered to as *we*, whoever it might be)_ already "owe" something to the Gaellic speaking minority or am I wrong?


As I don't know what you refer to, I don't think I can answer you.
You might be referring to the efforts undertaken since the foundation of the state to support the Irish language, which has been in terminal decline for generations. This support for the language has taken several financial forms.




> You cannot enforce assimilation, a cultural genocide isn't a nice thing to do and it can have opposite results - it is _'you' (once again, the *we *you mentioned)_ who paint the border between 'us' and 'them',


I know. The British tried to enforce an assimilation in their time here. 




> Just remember the historical developement of relations between the Irish and the British.
> Err, what? What's the difference?


The difference is that the British were in our country, trying to coerce the natives, not the Irish in their place refusing to be assimilated. If you really cannot see the difference then I see no point in this discussion.




> What makes aspects "brought" by pillaging vikings, romans and saxons better/different?


When the Vikings came to Ireland they came initially as raiders and pillagers, as you say. But, they stayed as traders and married into, and merged into, Irish society. They made whatever changes to their way of life  were necessary to facilitate the assimilation. They began as separatists - Oxmantown, an area to the north-west of Dublin, takes its name from Ostmantown - the town of the men from the East. But, they adapted to us. Not the other way around.



> Could you elaborate why, say whiskey, the church, pants and harps were introduced differently to pyjamas, bandanas, shampoo and vegetarianity?


You seem top have a hang-up about how some aspects of Indian culture are in everyday use in Britain. They were brought back by British people - as has happened in every culture which ever traded with any other. Traders from the 'home' nation, (or explorers, colonists, soldiers or whatever) went abroad and say the locals using X. They thought it might be a good thing and brought it back with them, where it became just another item in the market-place, there to survive and sell, or perish and rot if the locals didn't take to it. 

As to your points
*whiskey*, - widely believed to be an Irish invention, so it wasn't "introduced"
*the church*, - following its introduction to Ireland, and whilst the "Dark Ages" held sway over Europe, the Church in Ireland was a very Celtic entity and had to be put down by Rome at the Synod of Whitby. The Irish have long had their own brand of "church".
*pants* - the Irish are believed to have introduced the kilt to the scots, so I take it that the introduction of pants was the arrival of something seen as an improvement to the Irish wardrobe. However, when I was very young there would have been young boys in the west of Ireland still wearing 'skirts'.
*harp* - or _an cláirseach_. It is not known when the harp came to Ireland, or indeed if it actually came or was an independent Irish creation. They have been recorded in folklore pre-dating the arrival of even the Celts. However, they are a large part of our musical heritage.

I don't see what this has to do with emigrants not wishing to assimilate into the culture of the nation to which they immigrate, and expecting the host nation to fund/subsidise their culture.


----------



## Blackleaf

übermönch said:


> It's the other way round. The _Welsh_ Tudor dynasty unified Wales and England. Does it matter?


 
Correct. The Tudors were Welsh, not English. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were Tudors. But not only that, but after England and Wales unified together, in 1707 England/Wales unified with Scotland to form Britain. And that also was nothing to do with the English. The blame for that lies with the Scots. In 1603, King James I of England/Wales (VI of Scotland) unified together the crowns of England and Scotland and also created the Union Jack. This eventually led to England/Wales unifying with Scotland in 1707. So Britain was created by the Scots, not the English. England didn't invade Scotland - it was the Scots who chose to unify themselves with England.


----------



## maxiogee

Blackleaf said:


> England didn't invade Scotland - it was the Scots who chose to unify themselves with England.




Tut tut. The Scots were "bought and sold for English gold" — do a google on the phrase and find out.


----------



## Blackleaf

Outsider said:


> .
> For example, Brits accept Wales and Welsh as a part of what the U.K. is (even if not consensually so).


 
What?!?!  Wales has been unified with England since around 1282.  Since 1282 Wales and England have been the a part of the same country.  The British (and the Welsh are British too) have to accept Wales as part of their country as it has been joined with England for 600 years.  England and Wales have been joined together for far longer than than California and New York have been joined together.


----------



## Blackleaf

maxiogee said:


> Tut tut. The Scots were "bought and sold for English gold" — do a google on the phrase and find out.


 
Yeah yeah.  It was the SCOTSMAN, King James I of England/Wales, VI of Scotland, that unified England/Wales's crown with that of Scotland's, and the Union Flag (or Union Jack) which so many Irishmen hate was also the creation of a Scotsman - not an Englishman.  It was James I (VI) who created the Union Flag.  Nothing to do with the English.  Britain is a SCOTTISH creation.


----------



## Brioche

Blackleaf said:


> Yeah yeah. It was the SCOTSMAN, King James I of England/Wales, VI of Scotland, that unified England/Wales's crown with that of Scotland's, and the Union Flag (or Union Jack) which so many Irishmen hate was also the creation of a Scotsman - not an Englishman. It was James I (VI) who created the Union Flag. Nothing to do with the English. Britain is a SCOTTISH creation.


 
Not quite the whole story.

James VI and I was King of Scotland and King of England, two separate monarchies. The next monarchs, Charles I, Charles II, James VII and II, William III and Mary II, and Queen Anne were King/Queen of Scotland and King/Queen of England.

The two monarchies of Scotland and England were united as the _United Kingdom of Great Britain_ in 1707. Queen Anne was the last monarch of Scotland, the last monarch of England, and the first monarch of the UK. Officially, Ireland remained a separate monarchy until 1801.

Coercive tactics, trade restrictions and bribery were involved in "persuading" the Scottish parliament to agree to the Union of Scotland and England. The Union was *not* a Scottish initiative.


----------



## maxiogee

Blackleaf said:


> Yeah yeah.  It was the SCOTSMAN, King James I of England/Wales, VI of Scotland, that unified England/Wales's crown with that of Scotland's,



You say this as if he wasn't backed up in doing this by the English. You seem to imply that wee Scotland was the power behind the action. Surely you know better than that, and if you don't, shame on your teachers. The fact that the Scots had to be coerced into the Union is a well-documented story. 



> and the Union Flag (or Union Jack) which so many Irishmen hate


What has that got to do with anything? Is there an unspoken content which I am missing?



> Britain is a SCOTTISH creation.


I would agree that, without the contribution of a vast number of notable Scots, the entity which was the British Empire would not have been what it was, but that is not quite the same thing.
Just because the monarch at the time was a Scot doesn't mean that the creation of the Union was a Scottish deed.

You seem to have a little problem with the concept. 
Did some Scot scowl at your mammy when she was carrying you? 

and finally


> Britain is a SCOTTISH creation.


Check out…
…who actually signed the Act of Union.
…when it happened.
…when King James I & VI died.


----------



## Outsider

Blackleaf said:


> What?!?!  Wales has been unified with England since around 1282.  Since 1282 Wales and England have been the a part of the same country.  The British (and the Welsh are British too) have to accept Wales as part of their country as it has been joined with England for 600 years.  England and Wales have been joined together for far longer than than California and New York have been joined together.


You conveniently ignored the other part of my post, concerning the *Welsh language*...


----------



## Blackleaf

Brioche said:


> Not quite the whole story.
> 
> James VI and I was King of Scotland and King of England, two separate monarchies.


 
How can it be two separate monarchies when James VI of Scotland was James I of England?  James VI of Scotland, I of England became the first monarch of BOTH Scotland AND England in 1603 when Queen Elizabeth I of England died.  This was known as the Union of the Crowns - in 1603, James VI and I unified together the Crowns of England and Scotland into the Monarchy that we have today.  So, in fact, the Monarchy that England has today is basically just Scotland's Monarchy ruling the whole of the United Kingdom, as he was a member of the Scottish Royal Family before he ebcame King.

In 1606, James VI and I also created the Union Jack.  Again, it wasn't the English who invented the Union Jack.  It was the Scots.


----------



## Blackleaf

Brioche said:


> The two monarchies of Scotland and England were united as the _United Kingdom of Great Britain_ in 1707. Queen Anne was the last monarch of Scotland, the last monarch of England, and the first monarch of the UK. Officially, Ireland remained a separate monarchy until 1801.


 
You're completely wrong. England and Scotland unified together in 1707 as part of the same country but their two monarchies unified way back in 1606. Scotland and England shared the same monarchy for 100 years before they unified together to form Britain.

And you're also wrong when you say that Ireland had a separate monarchy until 1801 when that became a part of Britain. In fact, Ireland had the same monarchy as Britain for a long time before 1801. James VI of Scotland not only became James I of England/Wales in 1603, but he also became James I of Ireland. James VI and I's son, King Charles I - who was beheaded in 1649 - was the King of England, Scotland and Ireland until he was beheaded. Charles I's son - King James II - was also King of Scotland, England/Wales and Ireland between 1685 and 1688.


----------



## Blackleaf

> You seem to imply that wee Scotland was the power behind the action.


 
"Don't blame it on "wee" Scotland. It's only small. It can't be capable of such a thing."

Don't be silly. Nowadays, England's population is ten times bigger than Scotland's but in 1603 and the Union of the Crowns Scotland's population would only have been half or even two-thirds that of England. Also, in doesn't matter how "wee" Scotland was. James VI of Scotland I of England was a SCOTSMAN, and in 1603 the Monarch was an Absoloute Monarch who ruled absolute, unlike today's Constitutional Monarchy. Therefore, the English - as today - were ruled by a Scotsman. No matter how small Scotland was compared to England, it was a SCOTSMAN who had England's power and ruled England.


----------



## Blackleaf

> What has that got to do with anything? Is there an unspoken content which I am missing?


 
I meantion it because many Scots, Irishmen and people from outside the British Isles think the the Union Jack is an English creation that was somehow forced upon the Scots against their will.

Many times I've seen Scots on discussion forums or on the TV say things like, "Och, man.  Ah ***king hate the Butcher's Apron [[that awful Scottish term for the Union Flag]].  Let's burn the damn thing and show the English that they will oppress us for no longer!"

And I think, "Well what has the Union Jack got to do with 'English oppression?'  It wasn't the English who created it but one of your fellow Scots.


----------



## maxiogee

Blackleaf said:


> I meantion it because many Scots, Irishmen and people from outside the British Isles think the the Union Jack is an English creation that was somehow forced upon the Scots against their will.



Speaking as in Irishman, I can only say _fearadh-tarbh_ to that.

Just because the flag was designed by a Scot doesn't mean that the population took either it, or the concept of union with England to their collective bosom. Do you know any Scottish history.

But, you seem to excel in writing tosh about the United Kingdom. James may have been "six and one" but it wasn't a unified nation - one monarch, two countries - it's not difficult to understand.

--edit--
The Scots were definitely a minority - and were treated very differently than their English counterparts. The English peasantry wasn't subjected "the Clearances" which occurred in the Highlands.


----------



## Brioche

Blackleaf said:


> You're completely wrong. England and Scotland unified together in 1707 as part of the same country but their two monarchies unified way back in 1606. Scotland and England shared the same monarchy for 100 years before they unified together to form Britain.
> 
> And you're also wrong when you say that Ireland had a separate monarchy until 1801 when that became a part of Britain. In fact, Ireland had the same monarchy as Britain for a long time before 1801. James VI of Scotland not only became James I of England/Wales in 1603, but he also became James I of Ireland. James VI and I's son, King Charles I - who was beheaded in 1649 - was the King of England, Scotland and Ireland until he was beheaded. Charles I's son - King James II - was also King of Scotland, England/Wales and Ireland between 1685 and 1688.


 
Your grasp of constitutional niceties is weak.

Yes, James II was King of Ireland, King of England and King  James VII of Scotland. This did not mean that the three countries were united; nor did it mean that the monarchies were united.

For example. 
Kings George III, George IV and William IV [of the UK] were also Kings of Hanover in Germany.
However, the law of succession in Hanover was salic law, which meant that a woman could not inherit the throne.
When William IV died, Victoria became Queen of the UK, but she could not become Queen of Hanover, so his brother, Ernst August, became King of Hanover.


----------



## Blackleaf

> So, you say the eradication of celtic culture and language all over the british isles was a right thing to do and should be repeated on modern minorities?


 
What "Celtic culture"?  The Celts didn't exist.  "Celts" is just a strange label that archaeologists have put on certain types of ancient peoples.

And as for Scottish and Welsh culture, much of it was invented by the English.  The "Scottish" kilt was invented by an Englishman and was used to clothe his factory workers who were mostly Scottish.  It was cheaper to clothe them that way.

And the "Welsh" National Dress was invented by an Englishwoman.  She was the wife of the guy who Big Ben may have been named after.


----------



## Blackleaf

Brioche said:


> Your grasp of constitutional niceties is weak.
> 
> Yes, James II was King of Ireland, King of England and King James VII of Scotland. This did not mean that the three countries were united; nor did it mean that the monarchies were united.


 
Did you not read my posts?  I said that Scotland and England unified in 1707 to form Britain.  Britain and Ireland unified in 1801.  I was saying these things to some Aussie woman who was trying to tell me that the English and Scots didn't share the same monarchy until 1701 and the British and Irish until 1801.  But she was wrong.

But James VI of Scotland I of England still created the Union Flag in 1606 to be used by both countries.  It's as if he foresaw the future unification.


----------



## maxiogee

Blackleaf said:


> And as for Scottish and Welsh culture, much of it was invented by the English.  The "Scottish" kilt was invented by an Englishman and was used to clothe his factory workers who were mostly Scottish.  It was cheaper to clothe them that way.


Once again you show a great ability to speak about things you don't understand, or know about.
The "kilt" was introduced to Scotland by the Irish.
The concept of setts, or a clan plaid, might have been a Victorian creation, but the kilt is ancient.



			
				blackleaf said:
			
		

> The Celts didn't exist. "Celts" is just a strange label that archaeologists have put on certain types of ancient peoples.


The came from places unknown into central Europe and then moved to the British Isles and the western edges of Europe.

If no-one knows a name by which they might have been called, how can you say that they didn't exist. Your real name is not "blackleaf", but it is the name by which we know you. That doesn't mean that you don't exist. For them not to have existed, they couldn't be spoken of by any name.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:


> If no-one knows a name by which they might have been called, how can you say that they didn't exist. Your real name is not "blackleaf", but it is the name by which we know you. That doesn't mean that you don't exist.


I don't know... How can we tell if "Blackleaf" isn't really an alternate persona that you and Brioche made up, to satirize the English?


----------



## maxiogee

Think you so little of my wit that I couldn't create a better persona, all the more so if I had the assistance of Brioche?


----------



## zebedee

MOD NOTE:

Blackleaf, this is the second warning you're getting about the tone of your posts. The first one was here, which you seem to have ignored.

I shall once again remind you of the WR Guidelines:


> The WordReference Forums Guidelines
> Mission Statement
> 
> I. WordReference.com provides Forums for exchanges about translation, word usage, terminology equivalency and other linguistic topics.
> 
> II. The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.
> 
> III. We welcome members who share our goals and philosophy, and agree to act in accord with the rules and guidelines of the Forums.





Blackleaf said:


> I was saying these things to some Aussie woman who was trying to tell me that the English and Scots didn't share the same monarchy until 1701 and the British and Irish until 1801.  But she was wrong.





Blackleaf said:


> "Don't blame it on "wee" Scotland. It's only small. It can't be capable of such a thing."
> 
> Don't be silly.



We operate on a 3-warning system here. If you do not take the time and the effort to use a tone that is in keeping with that of the Forum ideals, your posting privileges will be revoked. 

Zebedee
Moderator


----------



## cuchuflete

Blackleaf said:


> I was saying these things to some Aussie woman who was trying to tell me that the English and Scots didn't share the same monarchy until 1701 and the British and Irish until 1801.  But she was wrong.



Was she?  According to your own posts, the English and the Scots shared a monarch.  Is that identical to sharing a monarchy?

I have no axe to grind in this debate, but am wondering if, for example,  Flumperphluph IV of Hojanegra might also be Flumperphlupe XI of Podredumbre, and if Hojanegra and Podredumbre are distinct countries, this constitutes a shared monarch, or a shared monarchy.   

Clarifications are invited from all sides.


----------



## Brioche

Blackleaf said:


> Did you not read my posts? I said that Scotland and England unified in 1707 to form Britain. Britain and Ireland unified in 1801. I was saying these things to some Aussie woman who was trying to tell me that the English and Scots didn't share the same monarchy until 1701 and the British and Irish until 1801. But she was wrong.
> 
> But James VI of Scotland I of England still created the Union Flag in 1606 to be used by both countries. It's as if he foresaw the future unification.


 
The Aussie woman was correct.
Scotland and England shared the same monarchs.
That is _not_ the same as being the same monarchy.
Scotland and England were two _separate_ monarchies until 1707.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks for the clarification, Brioche.  I was beginning to wonder if the U.K. and Canada and Australia and Jamaica, among others, were all one country, as they appear to share a head of state, who happens to be the Queen of one of them.  


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom


----------



## Blackleaf

Britain, Australia, Canada and Jamaica DO share the same Head of State.


----------



## Blackleaf

Brioche said:


> The Aussie woman was correct.
> Scotland and England shared the same monarchs.
> That is _not_ the same as being the same monarchy.
> Scotland and England were two _separate_ monarchies until 1707.


 
She was wrong.

How can they share the same Monarch but have two different Monarchies?

In 1603, there was a thing known in British history as the Union of the Crowns - this was when the Crown of Scotland unified with the Crown of England. Scotland and England shared the same monarchy 104 years BEFORE they unified together as part of the same country.

How can two countries have the same Monarch but two different Monarchies?  Are you stupid?  They both have the same Monarch, they both have the same Royal Family as each other.  EVERYTHING is the same.  So they have the same Monarchy.


----------



## cuchuflete

Blackleaf said:


> Britain, Australia, Canada and Jamaica DO share the same Head of State.


Thank you for making my point so clearly.  They share a head of state, and are independent countries.   

If two countries share a monarch (have a single individual as the monarch of each of the two countries) that does not mean that they are a single, united monarchy.


----------



## Blackleaf

cuchuflete said:


> Thank you for making my point so clearly. They share a head of state, and are independent countries.
> 
> If two countries share a monarch (have a single individual as the monarch of each of the two countries) that does not mean that they are a single, united monarchy.


 

They still have the same Monarchy.  Canada isn't a part of Britain but Canada and Britain have the SAME Monarchy.  They are still a united monarchy in the sense that Britain and Canada's monarchy is one and the same.  Our Royal Family is canada's Royal Family.  Prince of wales isn't just our Prince of Wales.  He's also Canada's and Australia's and New Zealand's and the Prince of Wales of many other nations.  We are still united monarchies, but noit united as the same country.


----------



## maxiogee

Blackleaf said:


> They still have the same Monarchy.  Canada isn't a part of Britain but Canada and Britain have the SAME Monarchy.  They are still a united monarchy in the sense that Britain and Canada's monarchy is one and the same.  Our Royal Family is canada's Royal Family.  Prince of wales isn't just our Prince of Wales.  He's also Canada's and Australia's and New Zealand's and the Prince of Wales of many other nations.  We are still united monarchies, but noit united as the same country.



After Cromwell I & II  there was the restoration of "the monarchy" - not the restoration of 'a monarchy'. England has a monarchy which stretches back to Egbert in 802.
Canada, as it wasn't around then, doesn't. The "Canadian Monarchy" goes back to 1497. Check it out. The Canadians see themselves as having a different monarchy than the British - maybe you'd better have a polite word with them. (If you do 'polite', that is.)


----------



## zebedee

MOD NOTE:



Blackleaf said:


> How can two countries have the same Monarch but two different Monarchies?  Are you stupid?  They both have the same Monarch, they both have the same Royal Family as each other.  EVERYTHING is the same.  So they have the same Monarchy.



Blackleaf, you seem to be incapable of taking heed of a warning. 

You've been warned once. You've been warned twice.  You've been informed that we work on a 3-warning system here. This is the third and last warning you're going to get about your tone in these forums. 

*The next time you're gratuitously unpleasant to your co-foreros you're out.

*zebedee
moderator


----------



## cuchuflete

Blackleaf said:


> They still have the same Monarchy.  Canada isn't a part of Britain but Canada and Britain have the SAME Monarchy.  They are still a united monarchy in the sense that Britain and Canada's monarchy is one and the same.  Our Royal Family is canada's Royal Family.  Prince of wales isn't just our Prince of Wales.  He's also Canada's and Australia's and New Zealand's and the Prince of Wales of many other nations.  We are still united monarchies, but noit united as the same country.



Maybe we need a Canadian constitutional law expert to resolve this, but I just read the entire Canadian Constitution, and while it has numerous references to The Queen, there is no mention---not a single word--about the Prince of Wales.  I
don't think he figures into the Canadian acknowledgement of a role for the Queen of Canada.

The Constitution of Canada makes clear that the Privy Council of Canada exists, and is not one and the same as some other Privy Council.   It appears, though I'm no constitutional law expert, that there are distinct rules for what the Monarch of Canada can do regarding Canadian matters, and how her power can be exercised in Canada.


----------



## don maico

Well, he is the prince of Wales not of Canada.He is accorded all the usual privilidges when on state visits based purely on the fact he is the Queen's son and heir to the throne


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> Well, he is the prince of Wales not of Canada.He is accorded all the usual privilidges when on state visits based purely on the fact he is the Queen's son and heir to the throne



I don't doubt that Canadians show the expected courtesies, but is there anything in Canadian law, constitutional or otherwise, that acknowledges the existence of any members of the Queen's household?  Is this a matter of custom only?

This could be a significant difference, as some countries do depend on written constitutions, while others give some customs and historical practices equivalent weight.


----------



## don maico

I have just done a search and cannot find anything that answers your question but as the Queen is also head of the Commonwealth ,which Canada is part of, and no other member of the family would appear to have official title with regard to it ,then I would assume their roles are simply as representtives of the Queen  and no more.

Btw prince Charles also has the title of Knight of the order of Australia amongst his many others but nothing re Canada


----------



## cuchuflete

Thank you Don Maico.  Perhaps some other Commonwealth citizens can add their local particulars.

I confess to knowing very close to nothing about monarchies, and as I stated before, I have no position on affairs between England and Scotland hundreds of years ago.  I'm trying to clarify a point of language and logic: Does a shared monarch imply a shared monarchy?

So far, I've found many references to Queen Elizabeth II's numerous realm*s* and throne*s*.
Her titles include Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Canada, etc.  Her powers and the means to exercise them vary from country to country, having a nominal position as Head of State in each of her realms.  Her husband holds honorary titles in some, but not all, Commonwealth countries. 

Here is more food for thought: (highlighting is mine)



> As the Sovereign came to be regarded as *Monarch of each Realm separately*, and advised only by the ministers of each country in regard to said country's national affiars (_*as opposed to a singular British Monarch over all the Dominions*_, advised only by the Imperial Parliament), so too did the Governor[-]General become a direct representative of the national monarch only, who no longer answered to the British Government. These concepts were entrenched in legislation with the enactment of the Statute of Westminster1931, and governmental relations with the United KingdomHigh commissioner in each country.


source

Regarding the Statute of Westminster, 1931--



> In other Realms the effects of Edward's abdication were more direct. In Canada it was this abdication that first demonstrated that the *Canadian parliament now had control over the line of succession within its jurisdiction*; with Canada passing the _Succession to the Throne Act_ (1 Geo. VI, c.16) to effect changes to the rules of succession in Canada to assure consistency with the changes in the rules then in place in Great Britain.[1] In Ireland, the laws allowing for the abdication of Edward as King of Ireland were not passed until the day following each of the other Realms, meaning *Ireland had, for twenty-four hours, a different monarch.*


source


Is there a monarchist out there who can tell us whether this all indicates a single monarchy, as well as a shared person as Monarch?


----------

