Wow - this topic has sparked off more mails that I ever thought it would.
It seems to have split into two different paths: (a) one dealing with
naming the whole country from just a part; (b) the other dealing with the
United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.


On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 06:45 , PMVA wrote:

> From _Engel lond_ and not, for example, from _Myrce_ or _Seaxan lond_.

Yes, but AFAIK there were not entities knowns as *Myrce lond or *Seaxan
lond. The former indeed would be strange - the land of the March dwellers
(i.e. dwellers in the borderlands). The Saxons were divided into different
kingdoms: Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex, Essex. It is noteworthy, I think,
that the Welsh who still calls us 'Saxons' (Saeson, sing. Sais) & my
language 'Saxon' (Saesneg) do not called England 'Saxony'. The Welsh for
England is 'Lloegr' a name which, I believe, was once given to the whole
island but came to be used for the Kingdom of England.
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 07:58 , Joe wrote:

> Paul Bennett wrote:
>> The kingdom of Anglia was only a part of the island, at one time. I'm
>> assuming that's what Mach was refering to.
> Only there was never (at least in historical times) a Kingdom called
> 'Anglia'. East Anglia, sure.(incidentally, what was that in Old English?)

Indeed, there wasn't. There were originally three Angle kingdoms: The West
Angles, the Middle Angles and the East Angles. IIRC the kingdom of the
Middle Angles was incorporated into the West Anglian kingdom at a fairly
early date.

But when the different kingdoms of the related Germanic speakers were
brought together under one king, the kingdom was called England (or the
Old English equivalent). OK - it was named from one of the original
constituents, so to speak.

But if this is what Mach was referring to, then the same applies to France
(named from the Franks who settled in north Gaul around the Paris area, I
believe) and to Greece whose name in most European languages is derived
from the Latin _Graeci_, the name of the first 'tribe' of Hellenes that
the Romans encountered by which the Romans designated all Hellenes/Greeks.

In the same way the French, Spanish & Welsh, inter alios, name Germany
after just one 'tribe' of ancient Germans, the Allemani: Allemagne,
Alemania, Yr Almaen (note definite article   :)

I am quite sure there are many more such examples. If Mach was indeed
meaning that England got its name from the Angles who were just one of the
several Germanic peoples that settled in England (and lowland Scotland &
parts of Ireland) after the collapse the Roman province, then fair enough.
  But I just wondered if............

> On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 06:24 , Philip Newton wrote:
> "England" = "Great Britain" or "UK" in some contexts, though England
> is only a portion of either.

Yes, I have met "England" used to mean "Great Britain" - really gets up
the nose of Scots & Welsh. But is it really used to include six counties
of Ireland as well? How ignorant can a person get? I cannot imagine that
either Republicans or Loyalists in the 6 counties like being called

On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 06:53 , Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 07:24:26PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>> "England" = "Great Britain" or "UK" in some contexts
> In what contexts is that?  Speech by the uninformed? :) the uninformed, obviously.

> Admittedly, many, perhaps most, of us Americans conflate the
> terms, but I believe it is always a mistake to do so.

Indeed it is.
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 08:32 , Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 08:01:13PM +0100, Joe wrote:
>> Generally we call the individual parts of the UK 'countries',

I am not sure who "we" includes. IME "nations" is the usual term for
Scotland, England & Wales - certainly it is among rugby afficionados who
are looking forward to the Six Nations matches. (For Left-Pondians &
others, the 6 nations are, in alphabetical order,  England, France,
Ireland [sic], Italy, Scotland, Wales). And Wales has its own _National_
Assembly, which does not make sense unless Wales is a nation. Scotland has
had its own parliament restored to it.

I don't think I've heard Northern Ireland called a nation. The Nationalist
there consider that it is part of the Irish Nation; the Loyalists
presumably consider themselves as a remnant of the former United Kingdom
of Great Britain & Ireland that remained loyal to the crown of that
Kingdom. It's usually IME called a 'Province'.

> I suppose since Wales has a prince it could be regarded as a
> Principality.

Not merely could it be - it actually is a Principality. If you live there,
  you come across the term used very commonly.

> Incidentally, how come England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland
> don't rate Princes?

In the case of England & Scotland its because they are _kingdoms_ which,
since the Stuarts, have been united under one crown and were in 1709
formally united as the Kingdom of Great Britain. Our present Queen is
Elizabeth II of England & Elizabeth I of Scotland; there was quite a lot
of argument when she came to the throne as to whether she should be
different styled in England & Scotland and IIRC there were even some acts
of violence in Scotland on post-boxes bearing the royal crest with
Elizabeth II on it. But it was resolved with an (informal IIRC) agreement
to take the highest number from the constituent kingdoms. Prince Charles
has wisely stated that he will, if he outlives his Mum (and her Mum lived
to be 101), be crowned 'George' - and that will the 7th one both in
England & Scotland  :)

Charles BTW swore fealty to his Mum when he invested as Prince of Wales.

The 6 counties of Northern Ireland were once part of the Kingdom of
Ireland; but the rest of Ireland is now a republic. There are troubles
enough with the Loyalists being more 'British than the British' while the
Nationalists want to be re-united with rest of Ireland. To create a
"Prince of Northern Ireland" would be a sure way of starting the troubles
all over again.
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 09:46 , Joe wrote:
> Wales mgith be a Principality, but Prince Charles has no actual power in
> Wales.  So I'm not sure it can actually be called that.

It is a Principality & is called that many times each day in the
Principality itself. As for power, Prince Charles has about the same power
as his Mum does in the UK.

I am not Prince Charles' greatest fan, but he has been the first Prince of
Wales for a *very* long time that has actually taken this office seriously.
  He even took the trouble to learn the language and this fact alone did
much to boost his standing in Wales and to promote the Welsh language.
Certainly when I lived in Wales, many of the Welsh had great respect for
their prince.

On Friday, September 17, 2004, at 01:54 , Tim May wrote:
> All true, but irrelevant to the question of its current status.  What
> information I can find suggests that the Government of Ireland Act
> 1920 created it as the "Province of Northern Ireland", although I
> can't find the text online.  I _do_ know that it is commonly referred
> to as "the Province" by e.g. the BBC.

Yes, it is - and most of the politicians there from both sides of the
divide seem to call it a Province also in the interviews I've seen on TV.

> The issue is somewhat confused
> by its identification with the historic province of Ulster, with which
> it is not coterminous.

Indeed, it is not. The actual Province of Ulster consists of _nine_
counties, three of which are in the Republic. But the Loyalists do use the
term Ulster quite a lot, seemingly as tho it were coterminous.

> The Northern Ireland Act 1998 does not appear
> to use the term "province" - nor, AFAICT, does it use any other term.

Very wise of it   :)

In short: the three nations of England, Scotland &  Wales are constituent
parts of the Kingdom of Great Britain (Great, as opposed to (little)
Britain otherwise known in English as Brittany); the six counties of (the
Province of) Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom
(of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).

[log in to unmask]
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO				September, 2004