Talk:History of England/Archive 1

WikiProject History/Status
I have created WikiProject History/Status, which has some notes about what needs to be done to make this article featured. Please add other suggestions and see what you can to help. Tuf-Kat

Article poblems
I've identified two major problems with this article, at least I think they're major.
 * Firstly: this article approaches English history with a very tongue-in-cheek attitude towards English successes. It seems to have been written in a very wiesely way.
 * Secondly: the term "England" seems to be used extensively in regards to the south of England. I realise this is where the Anglo-Saxon ("English") first colonised but there were Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and people in the north too at later points, yet its hardly mentioned.  Its only mentioned in passing as if in the context of "oh yeah and there was some Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the north...but you don't want to hear too much about that!".  I think the north of England needs more mentioning.
 * Thirdly: there's a rant lower down on this page that claims the Celts became christians before the "pagan" Anglo-Saxons. I'm almost possitive that is wrong.  Ever heard of Bede?  He was christian and documenting christianisation (as well as other things) at the same time christianity was winning over the Celts.  So I think its fairer (and wholely more accurate) to say that the English and the Britons were undergoing christianisation at the same time.
 * Fourthly: why are the ancient Britons constantly refered to as "the Welsh"? I'm pretty sure that the Scots, Irish, Manx and Cornish are all descended from ancient Britons too.  But this is just another example of how the article has centred itself around southern Britain and southern culture and southern history.

I'm not saying the article needs rewriting but its needs a few big clean-ups and some context shifts (and less pro-Welsh interference) before it'll ever be completely satisfactory.


 * This contribution hasn't been signed, and was clearly written by an anti-Welsh zealot who has no clue that the Britons (Welsh) were introduced to Christianity by the Romans prior to their withdrawal from Britannia. It is this insular, Celtic Christianity which was taken from Wales/Cornwall/Brittany to Ireland, and then Scotland, before England & the English were wholly converted. (It is true that the Welsh avoided converting their English enemies to Christianity, although there are some accounts however of Britons of Rheged/Cumbria converting the Northumbrians.) Homoproteus (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that neither the Scots nor the Irish were descended from the ancient Britons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.201.150 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

England before the English
This part of England's History, is nothing but scandalous. No word about Britons,about the british people or so very few, that it is really a shame. And the best is of course the worse, with this stupid story of "Roman England"..! Is it so difficult to write : Roman Britain instead of "Roman England"..has never existed ?!!!

Britain the fathers land of the Britons and not the England of the English who were in Germany at this time.


 * We have articles on Prehistoric Britain, Iron Age Britain and Roman Britain to cover the history of the area before the English came. I hope to see this list will expand further in due course to include other periods of prehistory. There is a brief synopsis of earlier periods in this article to put things in context but the bulk of the information you seek is elsewhere. It makes sense to discuss the pre-English history of the area that was to become England in the introduction, thus talking about southern Roman England although anachronistic can be a convenient term. adamsan 16:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand why people get so upset over seperating britain form england. i realize we shouldn't call it "roman england" but to say "all of England had been conquored by the year X" is a statement about geography not national identity. If i stand in england and say "what is the history of this land?" i would hardley expect someone to say "oh, well it appeared out of nowhere around the year X" what happened in britain is part of englands history.


 * Because you're asking two different questions. The history of the land is one thing. The history of ENGLAND is something completely different, England is a country and it began with the Anglo-Saxons - if they'd never come, there'd have been no England. Britain is a geographical entity and England is a country. Britain is NOT England and vice versa however much you and the establishment want to make it! 80.195.146.94 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the history of EngLAND, not the history of the EnglISH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.201.150 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

New Outline of British History
Recently, Dr. Goldstein said. "One tends to think of England as Anglo-Saxon," "But we show quite clearly there was not complete replacement of existing populations by either Anglo-Saxons or Danes. It looks like the Celts did hold out." British historians have generally emphasized the Roman and Anglo-Saxon contributions to English culture at the expense of the Celtic. A recent history of Britain, "The Isles" by Norman Davies, tried to redress the balance. The Celts were ignored, he noted, in part because no documentary histories remain, the Celts having regarded writing as a threat to their oral traditions. Generations of historians saw British history as beginning with Roman invasions of the first century A.D. and indeed identified with the Romans rather than the defeated Celts. "So long as classical education and classical prejudices prevailed, educated Englishmen inevitably saw ancient Britain as an alien land," Dr. Davies writes. The new survey indicates that the genetic contribution of the Celts has been as much underestimated as their historical legacy. Dr. Davies said in an interview that "traditionally, historians thought in terms of invasions: the Celts took over the islands, then the Romans, then the Anglo-Saxons." "It now seems much more likely that the resident population doesn't change as much as thought," he continued. "The people stay put but are reculturalized by some new dominant culture."

It doesn't matter in this case whether or not the Celts have left a genetic imprint on the modern English (we cannot tell as most Western European populations are similar in genetics...most being derived from the Basques), England was not founded until after the Roman period and the English as an ethnic group and political entity did not exist in Britain at the time (if anything the only English men of the period were Angles (who spoke English and considered themselves the English) not Celts, not Romans, not even the Jutes and (this branch of) Saxons who combined into the English culture during the early Middle-ages, unlike the Celts who still remained in parts of Britain (yes some did become Anglo-Saxons, but the Celtic people as a whole remained). Race and genetic should not be confused with culture, language and ethnicity, most people are mixes of all sorts and say a Black man can also be Ethnically English as much as a White Northern-European. Geneticists do not have the correct qualifications to study ethnicty I'm afraid. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * >race and genetics should not be confused with ethnicity
 * Pardon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Roman England?
An anachronism... England didn't exist in Roman times, and the English weren't there either, let alone prior to the Romans. The Anglo-Saxons only started coming in during the decline of the Romans, and England as such took centuries to coalesce from the various Anglo-Saxon/English kingdoms.

From LaurelBush 18:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Does 'pre-Roman legacy in England' avoid the anachronism?


 * Just say Albion? Matthieu 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Pre-Roman England" refers to the territories that would later constitute England. SKC 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Roman England ? It is really a joke !
Is what the British people ever existed in Britain before the Romans and before the conquest war of the Anglo-Saxons?

Of course "England didn't exist in Roman times, and the English weren't there either" and it is a very well known system used by the "English" historians (like David Wilson " The Anglo-Saxons" Pelican Book.1971.) : destroy the Briton's History, write very few or nothing about Britons or speaking about them with insulting words like "indigenous peoples" "aborigine" (when the Britons were Christians and the Anglo-Saxons pagans!) or working to destroy the Briton’s identity in using words like "Celts" "Romano-British" "pre-Celtic peoples", "legendary tales", "Legendary History".

Examples:" The Anglo-Saxon peoples (....), before they arrived in England." "The conquest of the rest of England probably started, as did the colonization of America (...)". David Wilson «The Anglo-Saxons" Pelican Book.

Note: But the historical truth it is that England did not exist yet at that time there. This country was called Britain since centuries before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon barbarians! Example:" "The Britons, under such legendary heroes as Arthur, for example,put up a considerable resistance against the Saxons. David Wilson " The Anglo-Saxons" Pelican Book.1971. Surprisingly they do not use the words "legendary stories" or "legendary tales" when they speak about Anglo-Saxons but only for the Celtic Britons.

No, those words are only "special tools" for killing the Britons and their National Memory a second time with words after having killed their wives, their children and their old people with swords and stolen their towns, houses, lands and properties which ones are now between English hands like the stolen lands of the Indian Nations, Native Americans in United States of America or Aborigines peoples in Australia.

It is clearly a colonialist and imperialist view of History written by the descendants of the barbarians and savage conquerors came from Germany.

Many "English" historians write as short as it is possible about the Britons and their national wars of resistance against the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons and they prefer put in front head the Romans and just after the English. When we know quite a lot now about the Britons by Caesar and Tacitus writings and many others and very new researches. It is not very simple like that ? Before the so distinguished English ? What ? Who ? Nothing ! ladies and gentlemen ! But only a few very very chic "jetsetters" from Roma ! But that is a soviet's like history of England rewritten by Stalin, Beria and co. ! Are they are ashamed ? No ! not a at all, but they should do, really. And the old British people History ? This people never existed ! Not concerned ! And History of real old Britain of British king Arthur, his knights and his British people ? Not concerned ! Only the "Romans" and the "English" !. Were any Britons living here in England in old times ? What kind of Britons ? Like some (very few, hopely) Germans say: Jews were living here ? Jews ? What kind of Jews ? But this is history negationnist. But this is negationnism.

So, what is the beginning of England History with the aggressive coming of the Anglo-Saxons in Celtic Britain ? Only a few very nice stories written by the "propaganda staffel" of the Germanic conquerors described like peaceful and smiling tourists just arrived from north Germany ?

Fortunately, honor of Britain is safe with a very few English honorable historians and scholars, like Nora Chadwick, Pr in Cambridge University, who have written quite good books about the Britons and their Britonnic Kingdoms during and after the horrific and savage German’s conquest of Britain with terrific killings of Britons civilians on large scale like Germans do in east Europe during the Second world War. A kind of (Germanic) genocide in many places of old Celtic Britain.

A word for the end: the "welsh"* people, named like that by the Germanic conquerors and invaders, is the direct descendant of the old British people and his real name is British people.

It seems now, after recent genetic researches, that a quite large part of the English people is also descendant of the old Britons rescued of Anglo Germanics massacres. We must think and remember that Britain-Britannia means the land of the Britons.

Please ! don' t forget the old British people History and their famous Kings and heroes like Arthur and their proud Queens like Bodiccea who were not Anglo-Saxon, who were not "English" ! but "British".

from Taliesin, Aneurin and Llewellyn.

(*which means "stranger», when the "Welsh/British" people was on his own fathers land ! Britain=land of the old Britons.


 * This entire rant is based on a single extant piece of writing by Gildas (who died in the 570s) whose main target was what he saw as the 'British' leadership grown soft and riven with internicine conflict. As such, his work, De Excidio Britanniae'is polemic rather than an history. Wulfstan II, who doubtless knew of the the De Excidio, wrote a remarkably similar piece warning in which the Danes played the part of God's agents of punishment. Archaeological evidence simply doesn't support the wholesale extermination of the Britons; the continuity of occupation and burial customs (see descriptions about the recently discovred tomb of an Anglian noble in Prittlewell) and chemical analysis of human remains all point to the survival of the indigenous population.


 * As for the term Welsh; this does indeed mean foreigner, or sometimes slave, in Old English. I have an hypothesis about this. I believe that this description may have arisen amongst Germanic traders, landing their goods in Roman Britain and speaking to the merchants and officials in Latin. They may have observed the labourers and slaves speaking a language neither Germanic nor Latin; a language exclusively spoken by the apparent underclass. Not Britons surely, they spoke Latin, so what were they? Strangers? Slaves?


 * One last point. It always strikes me that the people who write this kind of article presumably believe the 'Invasion' model of British history. But, they never seem to go back and ask 'what about the people who lived in Britain BEFORE the Celts (c700-800 BC)?'. No trace of them exists at all in terms of culture or an extant population. They, like the Picts displaced by the Scots, have been expunged from recorded history; ethnic cleansing par excellence! Edgewood 02:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders
Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the "true" Britons. The research supports the idea that Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders following the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century. Genetic tests show clear differences between the Welsh and English It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier" protecting those on the Welsh side.

And the upheaval can be traced to this day through genetic differences between the English and the Welsh.

Academics at University College in London comparing a sample of men from the UK with those from an area of the Netherlands where the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have originated found the English subjects had genes that were almost identical.

But there were clear differences between the genetic make-up of Welsh people studied.


 * These genetic studies, based on analysis of current populations, are very difficult to interpret. It has been conclusively shown that the genetic differences likely reflect very old (pre-Roman and pre-'Celtic' isolated inter-breeding populations) differences rather than migrations during any historical period. Careful, long-term and far more extensive work studying the development of individual settlements and isotope studies that identify the birthplaces of excavated human remains reveal very little impact of the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' on the indigenous population. They adopted Anglo-Saxon customs in much the same way that present-day Britons eat Big Macs, watch Brad Pitt movies and wear jeans. Incidentally the same is also probably true for the Celts. The 'genuine' Celts (e.g. the Hallstadt culture people) never got to Britain, just elements of their culture with the indigenous population picking and choosing oranaments and decoration but keeping their distinctively non-Celtic houses and burial customs. So, the Celts didn't genocidally exterminate those who already lived in Britain, and the 'Celts' weren't exterminated by the English. For a general discussion of these issues see Miles D. (2005) 'The Tribes of Britain', Weidenfield & Nicholson, London, UK; Pryor, F. (2004) 'Britain AD' Harper Collins, London, UK; James, S. (1999) 'The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention', British Museum Press, UK. Edgewood 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish border
"The territory of England has been politically united since the tenth century"?
 * In Scotland the Earldom of Northumbria wasnt recognised as English until 1157, when William I renounced Scottish claims to sovereignty.

Beaker Folk
I'm never sure whether to add to these pages at the beginning or the end, but here goes. I just looked at this properly for the first time and noticed that the Beaker Folk are mentioned. I remember learning about them in school, but I thought it was now generally accepted that they were a myth - what actually happened was that Britain imported these goods, or at any rate the culture, from the continent. Is this generally agreed and would it be okay to remove the reference to the Beaker Folk? Deb

Refactored. Cornish debate now resolved and removed by ignoring it entirely and noting general fluctuating state of England. sjc

Miscellaneous
I changed the line about the rise of machine labor to something an economist would not scoff at. Machines resulted in increased productivity not because of tax advantages but because they allowed for worker output to increase.

The line about wealth increasing due to colonial expansion was also removed. There are very few examples of a nation becoming wealthier from colonies. Most British colonies cost more in terms of administration and military expenditures then they returned in tax receipts. The dramatic rise in British wealth from 1780 through the 19th century is due to the efficiencies of the agricultural and industrial revolutions and the policy of free trade.

As to luddites, it might be mentioned that within those industries that used machines in production there were vast increases in the number of workers employed. The luddite predictions were not only wrong but completely wrong. Machines created jobs, by raising output per worker and therefore making each additional worker more valuable.

We should also mention, that in the moral climate created by industrialization and capitalism, people on a mass scale first began to perceive slavery as evil, and sought its eradication, and that this moral climate led the British people to demand an end of the world slave trade, which their Navy successfully enforced. This is one of the greatest humanitarian achievements in history, and is far more important than much of the drivel that is ritualistically mentioned in standard histories (luddites, for instance). - TS

You make some v. interesting points, Tim, and there's not much I'd disagree with in what you say. sjc - Thanks, Tim - good edits and useful take on industry.--MichaelTinkler

- I have a gripe about this article -- it seems to in its second part treat the history of the United Kingdom as the history of England. As every one knows, the UK is more than just England. (Though how often do people seem to forget it?) -- Simon J Kissane I agree but how do we separate it? --rmhermen

This is a largely intractable problem. My proposal is this: that we draw a line at the point at which the Union is fixed and then just move stuff across and link. sjc

16 October 2001. Still no Wikipedia entry on the British Empire, AFAIK. Largest empire in the history of the world, sun never sets, etc, etc. I am not competent to begin this. Anybody else want to step in?

From the article: in 1666, London, the timbered capital city of England, was swept by fire, the Great Fire of London, which raged for 5 days, killing 20% of the city's population and destroying c. 15,000 buildings. Was 20% of London's population really killed? If I'm remembering my history lessons correctly, only 6 people are known to have died, and although probably many more than that actually died (beggars and so forth), I've never seen a mention of anything like 20%. Where did this number come from? -- DrBob

Sounds like a faux pas to me. 6 looks like a decent figure to me. sjc

I think having the History of England as one page is going to get more and more messy. Perhaps breaking them apart (with History of England linking to them and the pages linking to History of England) or some system of header and sub-headers that are perhaps anchored and linked to at the top of the page.

That's possibly true but the status quo does have the advantage of being better if you want to print a coherent article. However if we are going to split it, I'd like to split into at least three articles pre-1066 (History of Britain), 1066-1707 (History of England) and post-1707 (History of the UK) on the grounds that this would go someway to solving the problem that this article would be better described as the History of Britain/England/UK at the moment.


 * That looks an extremely sensible split. I would note a couple of caveats. England still did not have a recognisable shape of being England until much later; certainly Cornwall was autonomous at this time as were parts of Cumbria and the North, and the Welsh boundaries fluctuated erratically as a consequence of military and political ebb and flow.


 * BTW Whoever reworded the 1st paragraph has done an excellent and thoughtful job on it which should remove most of the controversy about the status of Cornwall by neatly avoiding the subject altogether. I might have to belt in a few caveats about the general shape of England but this seems an eminently more practical resolution of the problem than has been adopted by a few proponents of the Deep England mythology. I am now going to refactor the Talk page to reflect that I consider it a dead issue. sjc

I don't like having the pre-Anglo-Saxon history under the topic of "History of England". Why can't that be put under "History of Britain"? That way we wouldn't have to acknowledge and ignore anachronism. john 21:16 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

complementary waves of Germanic tribesmen - what does that mean? RickK 02:48, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It means, or maybe it should say, that successive waves of Germanic tribesmen came because of previous waves. They were invited by the earlier waves, or came on their own because they heard good things about the land from the earlier waves. Adam Bishop 02:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It should probably say that specifically, because I sure don't get that meaning from reading it. RickK 02:57, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It doesnt take a rocket scientist. Tridesch


 * Thank you for being obnoxious. RickK 03:03, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I want to make a History of Britain Series, this is, of course quite impossible between England, Scotland and Ireland and their various pre-1600 histories. So... I was thinking of making a History of England Series ending at the Union of the Crowns, after which History of Britain would come into effect. A history of Scotland will also be made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:History_of_England - this is a table I have come up with, not all of the articles linked to are satisfactory. If anyone thinks it's a good idea - I wouldn't mind some help/imput etc. --OldakQuill 19:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, fair enough but note that England and Scotland as political entities only exist between about 500 AD and 1700 AD. Before that History of Britain is a more appropriate title since the Angles lived in Europe and the Scots in Ireland. After that History of the United Kingdom would be more appropriate since Ireland is involved. -- Derek Ross 21:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I am trying to think of a method with wich a table can be used - and yet serve both Scottish and English history between 500 and 1700 CE. Can you come up with anything? Splitting them in two, then merging them when Britain came about made sense... Please post suggestions.--OldakQuill 22:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The period dealing with the final years of Romano/Celtic Britain and the advent of the Anglo-Saxon peoples into Britain are less than 100% accurate in my view. While I am neither competent enough or have the time to edit this properly and would not wish to bodge such an article. However should anyone wish to attempt it I would recomend reading, amongst other works, "The Age of Arthur" by the late John Morris. Morris makes a reasoned case for the Celts retaining control of much of Britain right up to the later years of the sixth century and adduces fairly convincing archeological evidence in support of his case. A fascinating book well worth reading by anyone seriously interested in the period. ... User:theidiamin 09:05:04 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.107.224.8 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:05, 9 May 2004.

Magna Carta
The article simply jumps from Henry II to Henry V without mentioning the considerable events that took place in between. . .such as King John and the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. I think is a pretty significant oversight, and if the original author does not change the article to reflect that, I will take the liberty of editing it. Shakantala 16:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Magna Carta has the arms of England and Cornwall at the top.

Cornubia
Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. 

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 15:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Largely because there wasn't one and the exact legal and constitutional status remains an ongoing anomaly. Sjc 11:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorization
In relation to History_of_Scotland it's only lately been noticed that it was included in the category "History_of_the_Germanic_Peoples". This caused great anguish to some, and confused others. History_of_England was in the same category. I have removed it. If this causes pain, please let's discuss it. Ta. Angus McLellan 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ye Gods! I myself came across a reference to the Caledonians as 'Vandals' in the piece on the Emperor Hadrian. You may be interested to learn, assuming you do not know this already, that some ninteenth century historians-Scots among them-described English speaking Lowlanders as 'teutonic' and Gaelic speaking Highlanders as Celts, Irish or, worst of all, Erse. I don't suppose I have to tell you who was considered to be superior. Rcpaterson 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Stuarts and Scots and other Matters
Several small-and large-corrections of fact:

1. Charles I did not 'flee' to Scotland; he surrendered to the Scottish army besieging the royalist stronghold at Newark. He was then taken to the Scottish base at Newcastle, where several months were spent in fruitless attempts to make him accept the Covenants. In January 1647 he was handed over to the commissioners of Parliament. No money was involved in this transaction. The payment the Scots received was for the services of their army in England, not for the person of the king. This is an ancient misconception.

2. After the execution of the King in 1649 England became a Commonwealth. Oliver Cromwell did not become Lord Protector until 1653.

3. The plague came to London in 1665 and lasted to 1666. There was no outbreak in 1664. If you doubt this I suggest you consult the bills of mortality for the period.

4. The Battle of Culloden was fought in 1746, not 1745.

5. I've removed the questionable and highly biased reference to Argyll and Queensberry as 'English puppets.' I assume this must have been inserted by some rabid Scottish nationalist! John Campbell was the finest Scottish soldier and statesmen of his generation, widely respected in both Scotland and England. Rcpaterson 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Northampton
Edward II, his defeat at Bannockburn notwithstanding, continued the struggle with the Scots until the end of his life. The campaign was only abandoned after the conclusion of the Treaty of Northampton in 1328, during the minority of Edward III. Rcpaterson 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Surely the page on the history of England should mention the invasion of England by Louis xviii - The First Baron's war". This was a significant point in English history and involved a whole new King being crowned. This surely deserves a mention!

Powerful duchy vs powerful kingdom
I replaced this sentence "William ruled over Normandy, then a powerful kingdom in France." to "William ruled over Normandy, then a powerful duchy in France.". The reason being that Normandy has never been a kingdom, a duchy is what it was. Matthieu 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman language and William the Conqueror
William and his nobles spoke and conducted court in Anglo-Norman, in Normandy as well as in England.

Are you sure about this? I thought the Anglo-Norman language didn't even exist yet, that it would appear only later an was used by the aristocracy yet not by the court (which simply used Norman French).

So, no one can answer this? If no one objects I'll replace "Anglo-Norman" by "Norman" since I'm pretty sure it was indeed the court's language.


 * No one answered me yet. Considering I strongly doubt the Anglo-Norman language was used by the court (the language used by both the Norman and the Angevin court was closed to standard French and eventually became Law French) I'm changing Anglo-Norman to Norman-French. Matthieu 10:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

While I was around I also fixed a minor problem that prevented the first paragraph (Britain) from displaying correctly. Matthieu 10:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are the people of Great Britain and Ireland really that different?
It appears that this would NOT be the case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html?em&ex=1173243600&en=69a2f9fdf8440806&ei=5087%0A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.113.237 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Using genetics as an indication of whether two ethnic groups are the same or different is very outdated. It was popular in the early 20th Century and look where that led us! And Oppenheimer! Please! I though this was for serious debate! Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline template of History of British Isles
I've created a timeline template of the History of the British Isles. My plan is to put it into that article, like the timelines of Irish State in the Irish states since 1171 article. I'm sure there plenty of mistakes, although I've deliberately left out some states/people for simplicity's sake. The "events" I've added are also obviously "Hiberno-centric", so would like the imput of other's to settle what other events should to be added. General comments are also welcome. Since the table is fairly complicated, if people want leave suggestions for events and things they would like changed on the templates talk page, I'll add them. --sony-youth pléigh 23:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Geoffroy of Anjou
''During the disastrous and incompetent reign of Stephen (1135–1154), there was a major swing in the balance of power towards the feudal barons, as civil war and lawlessness broke out. In trying to appease Scottish and Welsh raiders, he handed over large tracts of land. His conflicts with his cousin The Empress Matilda (also known as Empress Maud), whom he had earlier promised recognition as heir, were his undoing: she bided her time in France and, in the autumn of 1139, invaded (with her husband, Geoffrey of Anjou and her half-brother, Robert of Gloucester).''


 * First I wouldn't say Stephen's reign was incompetent, he had to cope with constant revolts. Alright it was a bad moment to be English but to call the man incompetent is a strong term. Mind you he managed to get crowned instead of Geoffroy, just for this I wouldn't call him incompetent.
 * As far as I remember Geoffroy of Anjou never invaded England. He was begged by Matilda to do so but was satisfied with Normandy. It is his son, Henry Fitzempress (future Henry II) that invaded England (and became subsequently King of England). Matthieu 10:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

1707 - Great Britain, not United Kingdom. ("History of England" box and article)
I propose that the History of England box and article be edited to change "United Kingdom (after 1707)" to "Great Britian (after 1707)".

This is because in 1707 the United Kindgom did not yet exist.

At this time Great Briatin was formed.

Therefore it'd be better to show

Prehistoric Britain (before AD 43) Roman Britain (43–410) Anglo-Saxon England (ca. 410–1066) Anglo-Normans (1066–1154)  Plantagenets (1154–1485)  House of Lancaster (1399–1471)  House of York (1461–1485)  House of Tudor (1485–1603)  House of Stuart (1603–1714)  Great Britain (after 1707)  United Kingdom (after 1800)

I'm not a wiki guru so I don't know the best way to change this page AND the box together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc197 (talk • contribs) 15:50, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I actually came on this page to propse exactually the same thing. Yes you are most definetly correct and i am in full agreement. I would do the edit right now but for some reason that i cannot understand i can't edit this particular section of the page. I don't now why this is and if it is just because of my pure incompitence would someone please explain to me how to do so as it would be very much appreciated. (Electrobe (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Post Roman Britian
A poor written paragraph here that talks of the coming of Saxons - omits Angles and Jutes and seems entirely POV. The next section deals with this better!

Surely this section should be written about how post Roman Britain came under increasing attack from Picts, Gaels and Germanic tribes. (It's already mentioned in the above 'Roman Britain' section making this paragraph even more pointless.) That this time gives way to the legend of Vortigern employing Hengist and Horsa of the Jutes etc. 80.195.146.94 (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the way to go on this one is take the sentences from Roman Britain that actually refer to post Roman Britain and then build in the Hengist and Horsa references. (white43) 80.195.146.94 (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference to "plague and smallpox" affecting sub-roman britain is not supported by the reference. The reference states that the plague affected 18th century europe. 76.126.222.23 (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The one reference leading to an article on 18th century disease and epidemics do+es not justify the deletion of the entire paragraph, especially since the other reference to the plague deals directly with its 6th century occurence in the British Isles. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

New map available
The map image presently used in this article for England in 878 is from a bit of a sloppy scan, and is fairly low resolution. I've just uploaded this image: it's a scan of a slightly older map, but it's pinpointed at the same date, it gives essentially the same boundaries (but not quite), it's much more detailed, and it offers a much higher resolution. You might want to use it instead of the existing image. Nortonius (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Article italicized?
It might just be my computer, but much of the article (from the heading "Viking challenge and the rise of Wessex" down to Gloucestershire in the list of "History by county or city") appears to be italicized. Is there a reason for this, and if not could someone change it? (I couldn't figure out how) 4.244.69.97 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed; it was apparently a mis-transcluded template, though I'm not sure what the intent was as the template doesn't appear to exist. Anyway, it should be fixed now. Mike Christie (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tudor England
In this section of the article, listed in red ink is Tudor Revolution. If this article were to ever be re-nominated for Featured Article status, then the writing in red absolutely must either be eliminated, or altered. --EuropeOne (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The freest country in europe?
"and by the 18th century England rivaled the Netherlands for being the freest country in Europe" as it says under restoration of the monarchy. this sounds very nice, but far frum true. britain still remained a constitutional monarchy with a king or queen having most of the power. plus, there were many other republics in europe (italian city - states, for exemple) that were far more "free" than britain was.

--145.99.4.52 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Timkingioo
 * I think Holland was also a republic by that time? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although still unsourced, it now says "...for being one of the freest countries in Europe". It's weaker, but still POV until a reference is provided. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppenheimer & Sykes
I have removed some unreferenced allusions to the WP:FRINGE opinions of Oppenheimer & Sykes. In its summary of their article 'Who were the Celts?' The National Museum of Wales note here "It is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject. However, early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." Daicaregos (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record...
In the summary for my edit 368566334, I said I'd reverted to the last edit by Tide rolls, i.e. this one: 367322064. I should've said it was reverted to the last edit by Colormere, i.e this one: 367469178. Slaps forehead, walks away... Nortonius (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Henry VIII & Mary I
Ok, already corrected one contradiction of this article (where it said that King john was excommunicated...but then turned around & said that he turned to his overlord the Pope). Here's another, under Henry VII:

"He married the widowed Catherine of Aragon, and they had several children, but none survived infancy except a daughter, Mary."

Ok, so he and Catherine of Aragon had a daughter named Mary. No problem.

"In 1530, Catherine was banished from court. Their marriage was declared invalid, making Mary an illegitimate child. Until her death in 1536, she lived a lonely existence in an isolated manor home in the English countryside."

Aww, poor Mary, but ok.

"His putsch failed, Jane Grey was beheaded, and Mary I took the throne amidst popular demonstration in her favour in London, which contemporaries described as the largest show of affection for a Tudor monarch." AND "Her first act as queen was to annul the divorce of Henry VIII and her mother, declaring their marriage to be good and legitimate."

Now here's the problem. If I click on the link to the article for Mary I, it tells me that she's the daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. Wait, wait, I thought it said that Henry & Catherine's daughter, MARY, died a lonely life in a little manor home. Here I find she's become the Queen of England.

Thus, I'm getting rid of the manor home siliness.

Hopefully someone else can go through and check for other contradictions, and perhaps reqwrite the article so that it's a bit more NPOV in some places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Article material
I have added some new text to provide some history of England which is subsequent to the formation of the UK. Hope you find this helpful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Current rioting
This article is the History of England not the News of England. If and when historians comment in reliable sources on the lasting effects of the current rioting, it will be time to include the rioting and its lasting effects in the article. —teb728 t c 07:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mising information
This article seems to be missing rather a lot of important information. Especially in the 20th and 21st century section. The most important things that are missing is information about large scale immigration from former parts of the British empire into mainly but not solely England. As well as terrorist incidents from the IRA and the London Bombings which occurred in England. Eopsid (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Substantial rewrite up to AD 800
I have substantially rewritten most of the article up to about the appearance of the Heptarchy. For Prehistory and the Roman period this was basically just expansion (as it didn't seem quite fair to me as a prehistorian that they should be overlooked almost, completely simply for lack of written evidence) - I tried to include almost everything that was already there and have mainly followed the most mainstream sources I can find.

However, I have also merged the post-Roman and early Anglo-Saxon period parts. This is because the first Saxon invasions are recorded from 360 - there is an overlap between Roman and Saxon if anything, certainly not a gap. There were also a number of highly contestable points, such as population decrease after the departure of the Romans, which I have simply snipped. I also removed a lot of the pseudo-history, although some might want to add a little back in - as it stood I felt it was better not mentioned, but I do not claim to know all! Domrivers (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I also created a sub-section for "genetic history" underneath the Prehistory section, which I think is reasonable, and spent some time on it in the Anglo-Saxon invasion section. I do not think I took a controversial stance, but all the same I am prepared to entertain the notion that I might have. At the very least I think it is important to present all the points of view and remember that all these theories are changing all the time; this is the overall picture I tried to give, for that reason leaning more on the archaeological sources. It might well be worth talking about. Domrivers (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks you've written a good piece, and an interesting one too. Enjoyed reading it. But here's some quibbles (well, it is WP): (1) the WP gold standard - what you see for FA articles- for inline citations is to have a cite for every sentence unless stating the obvious, even if it means repeat citing. Your citations are relatively sparse albeit still better than much of the rest of this article - I suspect you could fairly easily fix that if you were minded to. (2) Some might say it gives too much weight to pre-history in the overall balance of the article. I'm in two minds about that one. But, over all - well done. DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello DeCausa, thanks for your feedback! I will certainly get back to the citations, a few of my points could use a few more. As for the balance, the main reason I wrote this piece is that coming across the article for the first time I was rather annoyed to find most of the earlier periods brushed over in half a dozen fairly inane lines while from the Tudors onwards every couple of decades gets a good paragraph. Of course, this is an imbalance that is impossible to redress, due to the discrepancy in the amount of available evidence; all the same I felt the early parts were woefully underrepresented. All the same I did try to summarise to a very large extent; while the "History of England" must include the early history of the inhabitants of England, people reading the article are more likely searching for later periods. I think that the rest of the Middle Ages could use a greater degree of expansion, somewhere between the detail of the Prehistory section and that of the later periods; then the balance will be about right. That task is for the most part beyond me however. I will get back to those citations though, thanks for the pointer. Domrivers (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Mercia and Gewisse
There seems to be a historical gap in this article regarding the List of monarchs of Mercia between 500-600. I'm going to need some assistance determining how that is going to be added. Ideas? Also seeking assistance with adding Gewisse to the article for that time period.

Twillisjr (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As for any other non-bio article, they would have had to have contributed something specific and unique. So little is known. Won't be very long, right? Student7 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Creoda is not called a king in the ASC, it was Henry of Huntingdon who called him a king and Professor of Medieval History Nicholas Brooks wrote "Despite Professor Davies's tentative advocacy of the historicity of this material, it cannot be said that it is yet clear that what lies behind these scattered entries in the works of Henry of Huntingdon, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris is anything more important than some inventive conjectures by an English monk, perhaps as late as the early twelfth century, on the basis of the names available in Bede, the Mercian royal genealogy and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. On such an interpretation it would not be surprising that they should more or less fit the fragments of information that we have on the early history of Mercia; for the compiler of these entries may have had access to the same sources as arc available to us." This sentiment is shared by another professor of medieval history, Barbara Yorke, who wrote " Although it is possible that some kind of regnal list could be the source of the information (though the Worcester lists begin with Penda), these entries could be nothing more than intelligent guesswork based on names derived from Bede and the genealogy of jEthelred, while the dates seem to be influenced by an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the death of a West Saxon Creoda.17 The post- Conquest annals' date of 610 (or earlier) for the accession of Penda seems too early. The surviving sources allow us to say with confidence little more than that the kingdom of Mercia was in existence by the end of the sixth century." The article on Creoda of Mercia was short and misleading. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Peasants' Revolt ?
Is it worth a mention? It strikes me as being a significant 14th-century event. StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ in the absence of any objections. StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

29 January 2014
I reverted this edit by because I believe a significant proportion of the changes had a negative impact on the article. I made a slight change from the previous version in my revert, partly for the sake of grammar.

A selection of significantly negative changes: That is not an exhaustive list.
 * "800,000 years ago" –> "thousands of years ago": while 800,000 years is supported by the cited source and by this, which actually pushes it back further, "thousands of years ago" is weak in the extreme and, I'd say, unencyclopedic.
 * Deletion of information, which is supported by the cited source, regarding a jaw bone from Kents Cavern.
 * Several instances in which the end of the last Ice Age is brought forward to 5,000 years ago, including a change to when Britain was cut off from mainland Europe: according to the BBC (and therefore I would guess just about anyone worth asking) the last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, so, regardless of what was in the article before Bouncing Faces' edits, 5,000 years is clearly wrong.

I think the information on Boxgrove looks weak, but Boxgrove is an important site and should not have been deleted: while the article gives a date of 800,000 years BP, this says "500,000 years ago" and this mentions a possibility of "700,000 years ago", but also suggests "some 420,000 years ago". I could go on, but mainly I would emphasise that, while it looks to me that there are weaknesses in the article, they need improving with reliable sources. Nortonius (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't Boxgrove that we should mention here I think but probably Happisburgh - from that article:"Happisburgh became a site of national archaeological importance in 2010 when flint tools over 800,000 years old were unearthed. This is the oldest evidence of human occupation anywhere in the UK. The other key palaeolithic sites in the UK are Pakefield, Boxgrove, Swanscombe, Pontnewydd, Kents Cavern, Paviland, and Gough's Cave." Oh - that's mentioned at the beginning of the lead, maybe someone added that and didn't remove Boxgrove. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Doug - like I stated in my message to you and to "APerson", I am "new", therefore I am not familiar with the how-to's of your procedures. Nevertheless, you have not only contradicted yourself with the citation reference subject (the contents of which are dubious, at best) but have yourself engaged in an "edit-war" with me, a newby with good-faith intentions, for the sake of your ego, it would seem. No offence, but this is how I see it, and how you come across to me. I have already stated I was given clearance to undo the reversion, but you have seen fit to reinstate it, despite the inaccuracies. You are pushing an agenda which supports a fallacy, I am afraid, and my interest is in redressing the balance. Nevertheless, I have no interest in your ego-wars, and if you wish to ban me for speaking the truth and for standing up for principles which support proper information, then you only expose yourself and the agenda you support. I say this in the interests of truth. If you support the idea, please mull it over. If not, then please carry on - you are only doing yourself and humanity an injustice. Take care of yourself, and please leave me out of your nonsense, in future. Thank you very kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncing Faces (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) @Bouncing Faces: sorry but you're talking cobblers, while insulting others yourself. @Dougweller, yes, I see what you mean, so that needs changing – but from what I remember I think Boxgrove needs a mention as well, maybe the others in that list too, though I've no idea right now how that might affect the balance of the article – I'm suddenly busy IRL, I'll try to get back later. Nortonius (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Nortonius - I insulted no one, but you have insulted me with "cobblers" [cobbler's alls and its rhyming slang-counterpart]. I reiterate - please leave me out of your nonsense in future. I also remind one and all of the requirement to not insult the public, as when you do, you bring reproach on your organisation. Cut it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncing Faces (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, you say ""Doug" is insistent on undermining the truth as well as my edits" and suggest I'm telling lies. What's the truth then? What's my agenda? What specifically is the citation reference subject that I've contradicted myself with? Seriously, we need specifics, not general comments. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Bouncing Faces, that wasn't an insult, it was a statement of fact (btw it's "cobbler's awls", not "alls"); and I'm sure I can assume that you're not privy to Dougweller's "ego". @Dougweller, I just made an edit, any good? I've had a slightly better look and I think Happisburgh will do after all, with no need to mention the other places. Nortonius (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looks good, and we certainly don't have to mention the other places in this particular overview article. Nice something positive has come out of this. Do you know that if you actually add a wikilink to my name I'll be notified of the edit? Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is true that I that you could go ahead and revert my edit; I didn't say anything about other editors' changes to the page. I support going with the revision supported by more reliable sources, i.e. Dougweller's revision.  The  template works well for the purpose that Dougweller is talking about. APerson (talk!) 19:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) Great, thanks and yes indeed! I'm aware of the pinger template  but I've only remembered to use it once before three times now, and newfangled little things like that keep creeping up on me...! I like that little diff2 template too... Thanks both. Nortonius (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the way I was spoken to has left a bad taste in my mouth - very unprofessional by some.

Secondly, the end of the ice age and the existence of human habitation 800,000 years ago is mere conjecture - unsubstantiated and dubious opinion by some who favour one version of events over another without any actual credible evidence that could withstand a basic modicum of higher critical analysis, it is laughable at best. I read an article which also claimed alien visitation on earth around 1,850,000 years ago also - I could just as easily "cite" that as my "reference" and quite easily get away with it on Wikipedia and not have to deal with this "backlash" against the edits I have made on the page. Just because someone makes a claim, doesn't make it so. Ridiculous, when you think about it!

Thirdly - I really don't wish to be engaged anymore on this site, not because I can't "fight my corner", but I refuse to be drawn into a futile argument trying to disprove illogical references when the standard is so low, and I work in Law and am a part-time historian! Therefore, in the interests of my sanity, I do not wish to be associated with Wiki, and have ceased promoting it as a result, having had a first-hand view of the internal politics. Thank you for the personal experience, please respect my position to be left in peace, and goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncing Faces (talk • contribs) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The 800,000 years ago claim is cited to articles in the Guardian and nytimes. These articles are both referring to research that was published in 2010 in Nature, a highly regarded and widely read scientific journal. Prior to publication in Nature the article will have received peer review (I note that in this case the peer review process lasted 9 months, indicating multiple rounds of peer review). If, as claimed, the methods used in the research were "unsubstantiated and dubious opinion by some who favour one version of events over another without any actual credible evidence that could withstand a basic modicum of higher critical analysis" one would expect that this would have been picked up in the peer review process. But even if it weren't, I would expect by now that there would be multiple publications refuting the claims. However, scanning through the 85 or so articles that cite the nature article I've only found one that questions the date—a non peer reviewed review article that argues instead for a date about 600,000 years ago. However, even this article does not question the evidence, only the conclusions drawn from it. So it appears to me that the only "unsubstantiated and dubious opinion" is the claim that this research would not "withstand a basic modicum of higher critical analysis."—Jeremy (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jeremy - I'm not going to have an argument with you, because you clearly have been trained well not to question these things, so I shan't waste my time, other than to say "please respect my position to be left in peace" - if you are a man of honour, then kindly do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncing Faces (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I am employed to question everything, but my opinions on this subject are not published in reliable sources so I would not expect them to appear in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does not have opinions, so like everything else that is published here, your conspiracy theory that these archeologists are pushing some hidden agenda should only be represented by Wikipedia if it is verifiable with reliable sources.—Jeremy (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jeremy - It isn't the archeologists I'm accusing of pushing an agenda. My opinions are published/sourced in thoroughly reliable sources, with explanation and evidence and fully referenced reasoning, hence the standard I measure things by are high - and, no, I will not share them, because the litmus test has already proven the existence of an agenda, and this is not a forum. Wikipedia pushes an established agenda, and it isn't a conspiracy theory, since it my claim has clearly been proven. 800,000 years indeed.. people pluck a random "once upon a time" number of years out of thin air whilst others believe them because they went through the same brainwashing program of "education", and woe betide the person that questions it. Nevermind - I think it is sad, but that's their business, not mine. The facts speak for themselves. In any event - like I keep repeating - this conversation is finished, you have proven my point by ignoring me, so please kindly ignore me properly by the cessation of replies on this topic where my edits are concerned. Thank you. Bouncing Faces (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said that you were gone for good about 5 posts ago, but still you return. A final note then. You cast yourself as a victim here, but looking through this thread I note that everyone who has responded to you responded with discussion of the content of the article and/or sources therein, and they have been mostly polite in the way that they have done so. On the other hand every time you have responded you have just thrown insults at anyone who dares to question your opinion. There is not one of your posts in this thread that includes any useful discourse of the article, so perhaps it is a good thing that you have decided not to stay, but if you do come back again please remember the golden rule of Wikipedia article talk pages and restrict your comments to discussion of the content and not the contributors (and yes, I and the rest of the Wikipedia community would regard questioning the level of education of anyone who dares to contradict you, accusing people of stoking their own ego, accusing people of being brainwashed, accusing people of following an unstated agenda with no proof proffered, etc. as violations of this rule).—Jeremy (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've just read through this thread and was about to post something very similar.DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And now I've taken a look at the edit User:Bouncing Faces wanted to impose. He didn't introduce a single source to support what he did. He changed text that was sourced, but left the original sources in place. The text, post his edit, was therefore inconsistent with the inline citations. He's not mentioned any source in this talk page thread, therefore he's produced zero sources in total. So his conduct in this thread was a reaction purely to his unsupported opinion, contradicted by the sources in the article, not being accepted. If he does return to WP he'll need to step up on WP:CLUE. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I consider it a priviledge to be insulted by you in such a "sweet" manner - because it only proves my point. I have deliberately not sourced the information for reasons exhonerated by your response. Nevertheless, I continue to confirm what I have stated previously. Thank you for proving my point, which I know you cannot see, but still try to justify attacking. I wish you well, and hope one day you may come to see life as it truly is. But that's your call. Let us see whether we shall have any further responses as further confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncing Faces (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Everyone please, Do not feed the trolls. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive?
The page currently runs to about 72k, and there's some very ancient stuff here, although the build-up has been very slow, relatively speaking for an article with thousands of views per day – maybe set the page to archive stuff over a year old? Nortonius (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a year ago is fine. Nothing before that looks active.--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok I've set that up, supposing I've done it right...! Fingers crossed. I've also taken the liberty of manually archiving stuff over a year old, as a fair few comments were unsigned and undated – given how the bot works, and from what I remember, I don't think the bot likes archiving things like that. Nortonius (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I messed up somewhere (entirely likely!) – I just tried searching the archive without success, does it work for anyone else? I note this related thread on the archive box's talk page, but it looks like old news, including the most recent query. Nortonius (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Playing with the search engine, I don't think that your archive page has been crawled yet—results for archived threads on there still show up as being on this page. I have no idea how regularly pages are crawled.—Jeremy (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, yes I did wonder if it might be an issue of lag or something, we'll see. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, working now, actually I had no idea it was based on a page-crawling search engine, I'd assumed it would be some kind of script! Shows how much I know, thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Genetic history of the English
I'd like to have this segment removed for two reasons. #1: A lack of reference for Tacitus. That's a whole lot of questionable info on 'the Briton's of England' there. #2: The whole segment is placed at a very inconvenient point between 'Later Prehistory' and 'Roman Britain'. Please try to maintain the connection between 'England' and the 'English People', who did not become a defined ethnic group until later in the first millenia AD. Thank You. Brimrād Genga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brimrād Genga (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised this hasn't had attention in almost a year, now I look at it, though this article's been on my own watchlist since 2008 so I'm not in a position to criticise! About the first point, there is (and was at the time) a reference for Tacitus, I'll have a look at what he actually says in a bit, though I think "stereotypically" almost certainly doesn't belong; and I think a few more references for the whole section would be helpful, I might try to see what I can do about that too. About the second point, I agree that the sub-section heading looks awkward, maybe that could simply be changed to something that looks less anachronistic, but I'm tempted to suggest making that sub-section into the first section of the article, above "Prehistory": would that be a neat solution, as the article is inevitably concerned mostly with the human population of England? Removing the "segment" as suggested is out of the question, IMHO. Nortonius (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tinkered with this section, giving the Agricola a sourced date and making the text reflect what Tacitus actually says. The bit about blond Britons wasn't from there so I took it out. Nortonius (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080523191332/http://www.enotes.com:80/shakespeare-atoz/population to http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-atoz/population

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

andrea invented
2ÁŃĎŘēÁ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.235.202.25 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)