Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
british history
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
at what point did the people on the island of britan decide that it was three countrys instead of one as this is cheating,in the world cup britan enters three countrys instead of one while most other countrys enter one,ireland does not count as because of british invasion of ireland and milatary rule we have two in north ireland and south ireland.
history will show in the future when we have got the british out of ireland that devide and conquer tatics employed by the british has not worked but it has worked well in britan with three countrys in one. -
Message 2
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
The three nations evolved out of a much more complicated past. Pre-Roman invasion, there would have been dozens of tribes, each regarding themselves as a separate people. In Anglo-Saxon times, there were seven "kingdoms" in what is now England. It was only when Athelstan came to power that the concept of "England" really began to take hold. Scotland was not unified until the 10th or 11th century either, with Scots, Picts and Norse all controlling different parts of the country..
-
Message 3
Posted by Anglo-socks-on (U7131496) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
I would have said the concept of an England was Alfred's , finally made real by Athelstan.
-
Message 4
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
this is cheating,in the world cup britan enters three countrys instead of one
Ìý
Think you might want to check on this first. The three FA's are seperate of each other, were formed seperatly and joined FIFA seperetly. They were some of the earliest memebers of FIFA. You will notice that there is no British Football team in the Olympics for this very reason. We also have seperate rugby teams as well, I suppose thats cheating as well (I try to ignore the B&IL's after the last tour, lol) -
Message 5
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
history will show in the future when we have got the british out of ireland that devide and conquer tatics employed by the british has not worked but it has worked well in britan with three countrys in one.Ìý
So the evil Brits even employ 'divide and conquer tactics' against themselves? -
Message 6
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
yes they do as it helps to keep england top and wales and scotland under them.
you had an english government overseeing the whole island.
now how would you like it if italy had two football teams and germany had two as well.
when the east germans joined the west germans they formed one football team why cannot britan do the same. -
Message 7
Posted by Anglo-socks-on (U7131496) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
Silly argument.A british team would not be so different from an English team( +Giggs) but if Germany Or Italy were fragmented their individual teams would probably be weaker. Bring it on.
-
Message 8
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
1) What on earth are you badgering on about TGBU? How on earth does having four seperate FA's lead to England dominating the other three?
2) THink you will find that it is a British Parliament with a British Government (though many Englishmen complain that at the moment it is dominated by Scots)
3) If Italy or Germany had two or more FA's then I wouldn't have a problem. Maybe we will be seeing Bravaria or Prussia or Brandenburg maybe, Tuscany or the Venician Republic appearing on the footballing stage sometime soon? Will help make it far easier for Wales to qualify so no complaints from me on that score.
4) Why can't we unify the four FA's? Perhaps because we don't want to. Germany is a very specific example to use. Re-unification was very important, therefore to have two teams would make a mockery of German Re-Unification, that is not the case here in Britain. There is no particular need to unify the FA's, the logistics of combining all the football leagues and divisions would be an enmourmous task. Where would you place the 10 teams of the Scotish Premership? Do you make the British Premership 30 teams strong? Or do you attempt football political suicide by relegating teams before they've kicked a ball, where do you place the IRish and Welsh Premier teams, teams who would have difficulty playing in the Doc-Martyns League, on paper they would have as much right to be in the British Premership as Celtic, so that means we have a top division of 50 plus teams, so no, please forgive this poor Welshman when he says that the present structure serves the needs and best interests of British Football quite well.
Also that Wales are the best supported travelling team in Europe
Have been on tour myself before now, that would be taken away by a British Team -
Message 9
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
yes they do as it helps to keep england top and wales and scotland under them.Ìý
Exactly how is 'England top' and how are 'Wales and Scotland under'?
you had an english government overseeing the whole island.Ìý
When was that?
now how would you like it if italy had two football teams and germany had two as well.Ìý
Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
when the east germans joined the west germans they formed one football team why cannot britan do the same.Ìý
Maybe because they don't want to. I'm an England fan and wouldn't support an all-UK team in any sport. I know that many Scottish, Welsh and Irish fans feel the same way.
While Britain fields 3 national teams in sports - the UK fields no fewer than 10:
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
England
Montserrat
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Turks & Caicos Islands
Wales
This number could be higher still if the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar etc were permitted to field international sides. In soccer, for example, Gibraltar, is currently applying for full UEFA and FIFA membership.
Neither is the UK unique in being represented by more than 1 team. Here is a list of other countries which also have several international sides:
USA (5 teams):
America
American Samoa
American Virgin Islands
Guam
Puerto Rico
China (3 teams):
China
Hong Kong
Macao
(4 teams if Taiwan is included)
Netherlands (3 teams):
Aruba
Holland
Netherlands Antilles
France (3 teams):
France
New Caledonia
Tahiti
Denmark (2 teams):
Denmark
Faroe Islands
Historically the Habsburg Empire also fielded separate national teams for its different constituent countries such as Hungary, Bohemia and Austria. -
Message 10
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
the point i am trying to make is it fair that you have three teams from the same island as thats what britan is an island,while others have only one how would you like it if ireland fielded four teams in ulster leinster munster and connacht and said it is fair.
also very good post ritchie and vizzer,but also whats stopping italy doing it or others. -
Message 11
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
TGBU,
You seem to be opperating under the illusion that we have some sort of problems with representation. If the IFA decided to disband and reform as four seperate football associations then no one in the UK would bat an eyelid. Ditto for Italian football, German, French indeed for any nation.
The point we have made is that there is nothing unfair about Wales Scotland and England having football teams. They are three different nations on this one island, so there are three seperate football and rugby teams, in the commonwealth games the four home nations operate under seperate identities. Now if there was only one nation on Britain then I can see why you would have one team, but since there are three here on the mainland then I fail to see what point you are trying to acheieve -
Message 12
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
you have three different nations on the one island who say they are all seperate when you are the same country,
wales is ruled by english people just ask prince charles
why do you only have one prime minister for three different nation.
why in your national anthem does it say rebelious scots we crush,
three nations ruled by an english queen,
is it me like or are these people having you on. -
Message 13
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
We are all united under one crown. Clue is in the title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nortern Ireland. The union is made up of three nations, England-Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.
Wales is ruled by the Welsh People. We have our own government in Cardiff as well as representation in the central Government
We have one British PM, but Wales has a First Minister as does NI, Scotland has a Primeminister
We don't sing the second verse, plus on the grounds of national anthems we are in a bit of an ambiguos territory. IIRC QSTK/Q was only adopted as the British anthem just before or during the FWW, prior to that we had no "British" anthem, and today QSTQ is a hot poltical potatoe as Wales and Scotland both have their own anthems (SCotland having two, Flower and Scot the Brave)
Technically she is German, with a large dollop of Scotish blood. William will be the first monarch on the throne for quite some time with a large degree of English blood in his veins.
However, the multi-ethnic monarchy is actually of benefit really in a multi0ethnic nation -
Message 14
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
why in your national anthem does it say rebelious scots we crushÌý
If the reference here is to 'God Save The Queen' then firstly it must be pointed out that this is a Royal Anthem and not a National Anthem. For a republican like me this is an important distinction.
why in your national anthem does it say rebelious scots we crushÌý
This particular verse, number 6?, (and there are many variations to the song and many differing verses) was written during the Jacobite civil war in 1745-6:
'Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!'
Six important points about this which need to be appreciated are:
a) the political context during which it was written (i.e. civil war)
b) it refers to 'rebellious Scots' not to all Scots.
c) this particular verse has not been used for generations (because of the obvious possible misunderstanding)
d) General Wade was an Irishman.
e) Survey after survey has shown that 99.99% of the UK population only know that first verse.
f) Only 1 verse is normally played at public events.
three nations ruled by an english queenÌý
As Richie has pointed out the Queen's blood is predominantly German and Scottish. Being an English republican I don't hold her ethnic heritage against her. In fact that would be offensive. My republicanism is based on reason. -
Message 15
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
The three nations evolved out of a much more complicated past. Pre-Roman invasion, there would have been dozens of tribes, each regarding themselves as a separate people. In Anglo-Saxon times, there were seven "kingdoms" in what is now England. It was only when Athelstan came to power that the concept of "England" really began to take hold. Scotland was not unified until the 10th or 11th century either, with Scots, Picts and Norse all controlling different parts of the country..Ìý
Certainly more than twenty in Britain; there are plenty of tribal maps on the net, with all their names. They may have merged quite easily if their numbers were low, or on account of a marriage.
Rhodri Mawr of Wales was a king of about three tribesm whereas his grandson Hywel Dda is constantly claimed by all knowledgeable Welsh speaking Welsh to be the only one who was ever king of the whole of Wales. HE knew that the future of Wales and Welsh culture lay in competitive friendship with England at all times.
He Signed city Charters all through England in the C10th. The Hywell dynasty which lasted 130 years was succeeded by Llewellyn, the last of whom was
Owyn Glyndwyr, who is being celebrated this year by that family in some way. Their dynasty lasted for 170 years, but they were (contrary to common English monarchy opinion) NEVER kings of the whole of Wales.
That is Wales!
My ancestors were Demetae of West Wales. -
Message 16
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
At the time of Hywell Dda, who is remembered for writing a book called "Law" there were three other books of Law, (in what is known as England and Wales today)which may bear some significance in the creation of nation states of those days.
There was Offa's book of Law (completely lost)
Aethelfryd of Kent
Alfred of Wessex
Howell of Wales
The last three resemble each other as books of Law,but then they probably resembled those of Islamic Kingdoms of Spain of the time too.
It was Kingship which determined statehood and things like trials of strength WERE important,
badly mythologised in Mallory's Works of the C19th. -
Message 17
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 5th March 2007
Yugoslavia used to have one football team, ao did Czechoslovakia and the USSR. When these countries split into smaller nations, each of the new nations formed their own FA and had their own national team. it is as much about politics as anything else.
And I don't see how having three British teams is cheating at all. If anything, a larger nation has a larger pool of players and, theoretically, a stronger team. Unless Sven Goran Eriksson or Berti Vogts are in charge, in which case it doesn't matter how many players you have to choose from, they will still all play as individuals, probably in a position they are totally unused to in club football. -
Message 18
Posted by Jay walker (U685047) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
If you think that an Island should be one country,where does that leave the Scots and the Welsh ? If you don't ,stop wingeing about a united Ireland which will come when both parts vote for it.
-
Message 19
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
a united Ireland which will come when Ìý
The good Friday agreements are such that Ireland is one of the few countries in the world ruled by TWO
sovereign legislatures.... the Dail and Westminster.
There are two Grand councils which meet at different times of the year; one of ALL Ireland, and one of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
The Achievement of one Senator Mitchell of the USA
Senate.
So it IS a united Ireland.... and it is NOT. -
Message 20
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
confused dont be just tune into next weeks good excuse for the state of britan.
interesting post though -
Message 21
Posted by Anglo-socks-on (U7131496) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
I believe that the reason there are Welsh ,Scotish and English teams.Is that the rules to the modern game were first set down in England.I do not claim that England invented the game, only set it to rules. There are probably many games around the world like football.As the game became very popular in England ,leagues forming etc. it needed to be set to rules.A national team was eventually formed but who to play.I think Scotland formed the next team and the Scotland V England game is the oldest international .Wales then followed. As these teams were formed so early on in the history of international football, they stayed. I don't think anyone could have envisaged its populariy now.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.