 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / April 2006When was the term 'England' first used.
Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? > Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? Norman Davies: "The Isles" page 229 "As a 10th Century Chronicler put it, 'Britain is now called England, thereby assuming the name of the victors'". Ref. Note 33:- Quotes R.R.Davies "The Peoples of Britain & Ireland"  SignatureThur > > Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Thur except it was the saxons who were the dominant species of goth in britain. >> > Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > except it was the saxons who were the dominant species of goth in britain. Not sure where you are coming from unless this is an answer to my other post, and not sure how you are so sure of your facts. SignatureThur "Thur" wrote in message > "ray o'hara" wrote in message >> except it was the saxons who were the dominant species of goth in >> britain. > > Not sure where you are coming from unless this is > an answer to my other post, > and not sure how you are so sure of your facts. He isn't. None of the tribes were 'Goths' and each of the invading tribal groupings were dominant at different times. For most of the AS period it was the Angles in Anglia, north of the Humber, and Mercia which were on the top of the pile. By the later period the sense of origin from a European tribe, except for the ruler's pedigree, had given away to a sense of statehood within Britain. Mercians considered themselves Mercians rather than as Angles. -the Troll "ray o'hara" wrote in message > "Thur" wrote in message >> "Briton" wrote in message >> > Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > except it was the saxons who were the dominant species of goth in Britain. They were only dominant from time to time. None of the German tribes which invaded Britain were Goths. Goths were an East Germanic tribe which spoke a very different dialect. Their foundation myth, which is probably true, has them originating in Sweden, but for four hundred years the Goths had lived in what is now Poland, and the Ukraine. The closest they ever got to Britain was the South of France. -the Troll > > > Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > except it was the saxons who were the dominant species of goth in britain. Surely neither the Angles or the Saxons were Gothic? Besides if we are to accept the traditional idea that Angles dominated in Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia, then both the first two mentioned were at one time the most powerful kingdoms. Allan > Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? England = land of the Angles. It was reportedly in 596 AD that Pope Gregory said of English slaves offered for sale in Rome, "Non Anglii sed angeli," and sent (St.) Augustine evangelizing in Kent. (Of course Gregory was well aware the Celtic/Irish church had started to convert the northern English and was tending to move south . . . ) SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > started to convert the northern English and was > tending to move south . . . ) Are you sure? Augustine arrived in Kent in 597AD. By 623 Paulinus was baptising Edwin of Northumbria and some of his people at Yeavering which now lies on the Scottish/English border. Wasn't it the 630s, a generation after Augustine, before the Celtic/Irish church had a presence in Northumbria when Aidan was invited there and Lindisfarne and Melrose were founded? No doubt the original British church still existed too of course. Allan >> Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > started to convert the northern English and was > tending to move south . . . ) The reason I asked the question was you often see people writing or hear them talking as you do here. You say 'English slaves' and the 'northern English' but surely this is before the concept of the English or England existed? > >> Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > English' but surely this is before the concept of the English or England > existed? 1. These were "English slaves" because that is how Pope Gregory's pun was reported. 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, "northern English" people means those living in the northern parts of the place nowadays called England. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >>>> Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1. These were "English slaves" because that is how > Pope Gregory's pun was reported. Where in Britain were these slaves from? Maybe they just Anglians. > 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, > "northern English" people means those living in the > northern parts of the place nowadays called England. I understand that but I don't think people should refer to it as England or the people as English at that time. > > 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, > > "northern English" people means those living in the > > northern parts of the place nowadays called England. > I understand that but I don't think people should refer to it as England or > the people as English at that time. True. But you still get discussions about the first people in America ... 'America' is possibly not too confusing (as long as you refer to the whole continent and not the political area otherwise the 'USA') but the geographical description of these islands is the 'British Isles' and that receives political complaints. There is no simple geographical description of either of the two larger islands that doesn't cause political hackles to rise. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, >>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > geographical description of either of the two larger islands that > doesn't cause political hackles to rise. I don't really see how describing the area as Britain in that era should cause peoples political hackles to rise. Certainly more accurate than calling it England. > >>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, > >>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cause peoples political hackles to rise. Certainly more accurate than > calling it England. Could be more confusing too though. For instance say southern Scotland and everyone knows what area you are talking about. Using that term when talking about a time before Scotland is only pinpointig it geographically. How would you describe that, quite so easily, in terms of Britain? North Britain could be many places. Allan >>>>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, >>>>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Allan There are the names of the Kingdoms that existed at those times. >>>>>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, >>>>>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > There are the names of the Kingdoms that existed at those times. Yes, but they rose and fell by conquest. Their areas of control varied depending upon local issues and the succession of minor rulers. Better to stick with something that is best known, unless it makes something simpler. Inserting contemporary political sensitivities into history is likely to solve nothing. - if that's what is bugging you? SignatureThur >>>>>>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, >>>>>>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > history is likely to solve nothing. - if that's what > is bugging you? I'm not bugged. > >> I don't really see how describing the area as Britain in that era > >> should cause peoples political hackles to rise. Certainly more [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > There are the names of the Kingdoms that existed at those times. So how do you describe where, for instance, the Kingdom of the Gododdin was? You could say to the south of Fortrui and north of Bernicia. But what if people don't know where Fortrui and Bernicia were? Isn't it easier to be a wee bit less pirnickity and say south-east Scotland? We say for instance Britain was cold in the ice-age - but of course it wasn't called Britain in those days. Hence must we say the largest island of north-west Europe? But Europe wasn't called that then! All we are talking about really is geographics. Hence someone saying the Votadini lived in southern Scotland, or even Lothian and the Borders, isn't saying those names existed in those days. Rather it's just using reference points more likely to be understood. Allan >>>> I don't really see how describing the area as Britain in that era >>>> should cause peoples political hackles to rise. Certainly more [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Allan That's not true when you use terms like the 'northern English' though, is it? Fair enough on the geographical points I suppose. > >>>> I don't really see how describing the area as Britain in that era > >>>> should cause peoples political hackles to rise. Certainly more [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > That's not true when you use terms like the 'northern English' though, is > it? Fair enough on the geographical points I suppose. I'd probably agree with you on that technical point and didn't use the term English. We don't really know when the appellation English first started to be used. We know Bede used it of course but was he the first or was he simply repeating common usage? As far as Gregory goes I'd imagine they were simply talking about Angles. cheers Allan >>>>>> I don't really see how describing the area as Britain in that era >>>>>> should cause peoples political hackles to rise. Certainly more [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Allan I suppose England exists from the point where the people began to think of themselves as one country/kingdom. Don't suppose we'll ever know when that actually was. Hence someone saying the Votadini lived in southern Scotland, > or even Lothian and the Borders, isn't saying those names existed in those > days. Rather it's just using reference points more likely to be understood. Yep. What IS the problem? Surreyman > >>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, > >>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > geographical description of either of the two larger islands that > > doesn't cause political hackles to rise. > I don't really see how describing the area as Britain in that era should > cause peoples political hackles to rise. Certainly more accurate than > calling it England. Some Irish don't like the concept of 'British isles'. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >> Some Irish don't like the concept of 'British isles'. I was once very loudly told off in the Republic's London embassy for calling Eire, Southern Ireland, the Republic ANYTHING except 'Ireland'. Surreyman >>> Some Irish don't like the concept of 'British isles'. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Surreyman Would have thought Eire would have been ok wouldn't you? > >>> Some Irish don't like the concept of 'British isles'. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Would have thought Eire would have been ok wouldn't you? No, because that would have ignored the Republic's (then) continuing claim to Northern Ireland! Surreyman >>>>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, >>>>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Some Irish don't like the concept of 'British isles'. I know but I think that's stupid. The British Isles is a geographical area. > >>>>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, > >>>>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I know but I think that's stupid. The British Isles is a geographical area. But any nation that, rather bloodily, had torn itself away from a 'colonial power' by revolution (and has even now still not joined the Commonwealth) would not normally enjoy its territory remaining to be included under the "oppresor's" name in any form. Understandable, if awkward. Surreyman > >>>>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, > >>>>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I know but I think that's stupid. The British Isles is a geographical area. I suppose it's just a case of someone being unable to differentiate between the very old purely geographic term "British Isles" and the political British state. Hence they feel that if they concede Ireland is in a group if islands called the British Isles then they're admitting to be British. Considering the history then you can understand why some are a bit sensitive. You see the same in Scotland where a certain minority of the population claim not to be British. By this they are probably only seeing British as being a politcal thing. Common sense says that even if we opted for independence then though we wouldn't perhaps be British Citizens any longer we would still be British in the way that Swedes are Scandinavians. Allan >>>>>>> 2. For dates before "England" was a defined entity, >>>>>>> "northern English" people means those living in the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Allan Like I said I know but it's stupid. I am actually Scots/Irish/Welsh myself and have lived most of my life in Cornwall so I do understand the Celtic sensibilities ;) > >> Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > English' but surely this is before the concept of the English or England > existed? Certainly Bede seems to have regarded the "English" as a people. I think he would have been writing around 720-730. England as an entity was I'd imagine a later concept possibly coming about through the 9thC expansion of Wessex power. So if Bede was the first to use English, or at least the first we know of, then Gregory's confidant was meaning simply Angles when he said Anglii. Though in reality someone using the term northern England is simply using a term people can relate to rather than saying England actually existed then. Allan. > Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? The earliest reference in the OED is dated to 897. Colin Bignell >> Does anyone know the earliest mentioning of the term 'England'? > > The earliest reference in the OED is dated to 897. > > Colin Bignell Thank you. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.