July 16, 2020 - 3:00pm
You won’t have noticed because we don’t like to make a fuss but last Sunday was the birthday of something very precious to a lot of us — England.
On 12 July, 927, King Athelstan, grandson of Alfred of Wessex, and nephew of Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, received the submission of the Northumbrians, formally uniting what had once been a collection of tribal kingdoms of the Angles and Saxons. As a contemporary wrote: “Whom he now rules with this Saxonia now made whole: King Athelstan lives glorious through his deeds.”
England is very, very old; its borders are almost unchanging; most of its counties date from before 1000AD; its distinctive and little changed legal system from the 12th century; a distinctive vernacular literature from the 11th. By that point there was already a strong sense of a group of people united by a common culture.
Along with France and Denmark, England is one of the oldest nation-states in Europe, yet, of course, today it is unique among European nations in not having a governing parliament of its own, a by-product of its historical relationship with its smaller neighbours.
Indeed, this makes it harder to understand what England now means, and what Englishness is. This is a pressing problem, as the Union’s prospects looks increasingly bleak in the post-Covid world (I mean, everything looks bleak).
Writing in The Guardian today, Newcastle University’s Alex Niven argues:
Of course, people on the Left feel less comfortable about nationalism than those on the Right, and the sort of progressive patriotism advocated by Billy Bragg et al somehow fails to hit the spot — because it is patriotism for an idea, not a land. English people of the Left feel especially uncomfortable with patriotism; Orwell is often quoted on this subject but it goes back to at least the French Revolution, when various radicals were as motivated by dislike of England’s institutions as they were by enthusiasm for events in Paris.
It was characterised by William Wordsworth when he begrudgingly supported his country against a now-obviously tyrannical France with the lament “Oh grief that Earth’s best hopes rest all with thee!” Indeed, that sort of discomfort is a uniquely English — rather than British — trait. (And, in fairness, there are things to worry us about English nationalism. I think it’s disingenuous when conservatives attribute this all to Leftist snobbery.)
But to suggest that the United Kingdom has erased England is to make the Union seem a more egalitarian-sounding idea than in really it has been. The reason “English” identity seems mysterious to some is because Great Britain always was an extension of England, which is why people historically used England and Britain interchangeably. The UK offered immense opportunities for many non-English people, but it was for many years deeply repressive of Celtic culture.
That is why there was no reason to think of some culturally distinctive “English” things in the same way Welsh and Scottish people needed to preserve their own culture from British (English) domination.
And it’s why, if the union does end, it’s not going to have the same huge psychological impact on English people as it will on Scottish Unionists. England has always existed, and always will — and even 300 years of union is not a huge length in the lifetime of a kingdom that dates back to the time of Athelstan.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThat Guardian writer has no notion of England and never will have. I was bought up by my father as he was by his as an Englishman. I have no desire to be British. It is meaningless to me. it is never important or necessary to discuss what England is. Leave that to the anguished idiots of the intelligentsia.
My grandson can stand on the chalk downland of Wessex and be told the history of the land in front of him and understand that his forefathers worked it and looked after it for so many generations. Fought to hold it and to defend it too. He knows as do my sons what England is.
No doubt our schools will try to force that out of him but they have been trying that for a long time and failed. Our rulers have never liked us much and we have never liked them. They do like to pretend they do though.
Hard to rule and quick to take offence. Long may that continue.
I think it’s always worth thinking about something, and can’t help noting that Wessex is an older place/idea than England is, just as England is older than the UK. But also that “Britain” is an older idea than England or Wessex. We all share this island and our interconnections are many and complicated, whether part of the same state or not.
I’m a British citizen of Scots, Irish and English descent who lives in England. I see myself as British. (I’m only ‘English’ during the 6N Rugby season.)
I see the 4 home nations as 4 parts of one nation, the longest-standing and most successful union (I think I’m right in saying) in the World.
Niven’s piece was a much diluted version of the usual narrative. Normally, celebrating Englishness ““ or indeed showing any pride in England – is treated in the Guardian as almost akin to joining the BNP, “Patriotism” has always been a dirty word there. That attitude, skewered so well by Orwell, is a default setting for most Guardian writers and (seemingly) most readers.
In their heart of hearts how many Guardian readers were not with Emily Thornberry when she tweeted her sneering white van with cross of St George picture? As though such low-brow, working class patriotism was worthy only of scorn?
They and the BBC, indeed nearly all the Metropolitan Left, have associated endlessly negative baggage with ‘British-ness’. It has infected any debate involving patriotism with a national self-loathing, the idea that patriotism is xenophobic at heart, the idea that British history is something only to apologise for.
The head-banging nationalist, convinced the British Empire was a force of unalloyed good for the world, sits at one end of the spectrum. Afua Hirsch and her cohort sit at the other end, convinced it was an endless parade of atrocities and depredation. Both seem as monocular and impervious to nuance as the other. Both seemingly obsessed with Empire.
Any sensible person can see that the truth lies somewhere in between those two extremes. I’m very proud to be British. As a student of history I am well aware of terrible things that happened (usually hundreds of years before I was born) but I am still unapologetically proud to be British. This country has had an enormous impact on the world ““ some of it very good, some very bad.
But it is our history. It for the most part happened in our ancestors’ day. Nothing I can do or say will change that history. My pride has no more bearing on it than my guilt would. Nor, for that matter, the Guardian’s disapprobation.
Taking all the good and the bad, there is no need to detoxify the idea of Britishness – or Englishness. Indeed if I suggested the need to detoxify any other nation’s history I’d be accused of xenophobia (at best).
The Guardian line seems to be that anyone who has pride in being English has somehow admitted to something unhealthy and ‘problematic’. Why?
If a Frenchman is proud of being French, do they immediately mistrust his motives in the same way? I’m willing to bet they wouldn’t.
If a Tongan speaks of his homeland with tears in his eyes, (they are, on the whole, the most deeply patriotic people I’ve ever met) would they be suspected of xenophobia and a misplaced pride. Again – I’m fairly sure they wouldn’t.
So, what is so different about a British person expressing pride in their nationality? Why does the Left automatically suspect anyone who has pride in being English of some sinister subtext?
Maybe a patriot SHOULD recognise the faults in his own country, I wouldn’t disagree with that idea. Blind Patriotism, alongside blind hatred (blind anything) is reflexive and unthinking.
As the rest of the country celebrated the 75th anniversary of VE Day, the Guardian went into overdrive, producing a whole slew of article that seemed determined to undermine any pride that was shown. Their prevailing attitude was that anyone who shows pride in Britain’s wartime past is jingoistic and somehow laying claim to glories that belonged to another generation, yet in the light of the BLM protests, the Guardian was happy to promote the idea that we should all shoulder the guilt for anything bad done by this country in its imperial past.
Admiration for heroes in the very recent past is backwards looking, yet we’re somehow on the hook for reparations to the colonised 200 years later. It doesn’t seem a consistent position. Why should the statute of limitations for guilt should run so much longer than that of glory?
Because reparations is not about guilt. It’s an economic argument.
An excellent article, that chimes not only with historical realities, but with my personal experience.
I was born in England and raised in Wales, to parents who were a complicated mixture of Welsh and English, working class and middle class. I spent most of my life in Ireland. If anyone asks me where my home is, I tell them it is where I happen to be living at the moment, because that is how I think and feel. Yet I have always considered myself British; and if there is one culture strongest in my temperament, mind, and whatever else makes one belong anywhere, it is England.
I have wondered a great deal about the differences between English nationalism and patriotism. And I find that, both historically and temperamentally, my own sense of Englishness belongs firmly within the orbit of those definitions put forward by George Orwell, Roger Scruton and others. In short, nationalism defines itself via its differences from others as much as its distinctive qualities; patriotism is a love of place, of culture, and at its core is self-contained, though it can, of course, spill over into nationalism, even nationalism of the small-minded, unhealthy kind. So my sense of being primarily English is firmly within the range of patriotism, not nationalism.
Ed West’s observations lay out precisely and rightly the relationships between the nations of Great Britain. (Northern Ireland is a separate case, whatever the most ardent unionists might wish.)
I suspect that these issues lie behind the instinctive reluctance of so many English people to latch onto a concept of English nationalism akin to those of Scotland and Wales. When I say that my sense of Englishness is the dominant component in my sense of being British, I do not exclude being Welsh; nor do I disrespect the distinctiveness of Scotland’s utterly extraordinary contribution to British achievements. And I certainly don’t discount the distinctive strengths of the various Celtic-based cultures around these islands.
English culture is a distinctive mongrel; and it has mongrel vigour. That is why I think Mr West is essentially correct about probable consequences if the union does break up. I would mourn its passing deeply, for I believe everyone involved, including the English, will lose more than they gain; and I am convinced that if Scottish aspirations of reviving the Auld Alliance via the EU are implemented, they will lead to cultural and material impoverishment.
I hope not. But Mr West is right to highlight this historical reality:
But surely that must be even more true of the smaller nations, since they have adopted so much of English culture (especially the language and all that goes with it). We all have so much in common. And I think we’d all miss the Union, especially if customs borders start cropping up – no longer an island, but at least 2 nation states sharing a landmass.
Thank you, Mr Jones. You’re right, of course that mongrel vigour is true of the smaller nations too, for all the reasons you say.
Because I was brought up in Wales, I saw this at first hand; and I saw it again for most of my adult life, which was spent in the Republic of Ireland. Moreover, in both countries I saw how attempts to “purify” by removing mongrels elements results in a narrowing of perspective, in a diminishing of opportunity and breadth of thought among those who seek it.
Yes, we all have so much in common, and we’d all miss the Union. But is it not the case that Ed West is pointing out that it would be unionists in Scotland (and, presumably in Wales) who would be the hardest hit. They would be the most cast-adrift for the reasons he says, more so than unionists in England.
Thank you for making me think again!
Similar to the point you made – I think ‘Englishness’ has been characterised my moderation. So somewhat paradoxically any overt jingoism or nationalism will be shunned by the English.
It’s repeated time and again throughout history; too autocratic/royal? Civil war. Too puritan? Restoration. Too extravagant? Glorious Revolution. It goes on and on, defaulting to a more moderate mean as soon as things get too extreme.
Our attitude to Europe was much the same – usually getting involved to only ensure that no one power has hegemony over the continent. (Naturally this was not out of any innocent altruism, but nevertheless there is a consistent track record of this coming to pass)
Hold the front page: nitwit academic writes article in The Guardian telling us there’s no such thing as the English.
Niven is a unrepentant markist, probably a disciple of the late, unlamented, Hobsbawm creature. He was born in Hexham, rather too close for comfort to Hadrians Wall, and in all likelihood will be of Scotch descent.
His inflammatory remarks should be ignored. His discipline is English Literature astonishingly, not History. Nothing he says will amount to more than marxist, didactic drivel.
“English” Literature? There’s no such thing. – I’ve no objection to having to deal with such “arguments” as advocated by the trendy vicar types who infest the humanities departments (and increasingly the STEM departments) of universities. What I object to is that they are subsidized to inculcate an ideology of hatred for their own culture. Niven probably thinks of himself as ever so subversive and cutting edge, rather than being what he is: one of the pampered darlings of the dominant ideology of the moment. Bourgeois Trotskyists are a menace and should be dealt with accordingly, otherwise we’ll end up like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Yes indeed, spot on! “Know thy enemy” as we used to say.
There is no doubt that the politicians have forgotten England. But it is more robust then it is generally recognised. Indeed it was one of the reasons the Brexit Referendum vote was won.
It is probably true, that because England was the driving force behind Britain, the English have become complacent about the terminology of Britain versus England.
But you are correct to suggest, that if the Celtic fringe wishes to go it alone, not many English people will care – even if they think it is a mistake.
Devolution has proved to be a setback to the Union, because it has allow politicians to grand stand on perceived injustices; whilst all the time calling for England to pay more.
Perhaps it is time England started to ask for the devolved nation to pay money to England – that would be fun!!
As a Scot now living in England it has struck me that England never wanted to be part of Britain. It has always wanted to be England with bits added on but perhaps you have to belong to one of those parts to experience this.
But isn’t that, in many ways, how Scotland and Wales view Britain as well.
What I do find puzzling is the Scottish propensity to glorify a spurious culture created by Sir Walter Scott and subsequent Victorians (I believe the Scottish anthem “Flower of Scotland” was penned by a Welshman) when they have a real history and culture. Even their greatest export is a relatively modern invention as it relies on sherry or bourbon casks to give it it’s colour and complex flavour. The original product would have been closer to vodka or perhaps gin.
Living so close to the Welsh border, I’ve always been conscious of the difference between Englishness and Britishness — I’d certainly hear about it from my Celtic counterparts if I were to confuse the two! I find it strange that England is sometimes dismissed as ‘little’, as we’re the most multicultural part of the UK. We’ve changed so much in recent decades and it’s sad that some, particularly on the left and in Scotland, don’t see that.
I’d be gutted if Scotland left, but would respect their choice. I’d rather be good neighbours than bickering housemates. I do wonder how some on the left in England would cope with shifting to an English identity, though — I think they hide behind Britishness to avoid feelings of discomfort about Englishness. Whatever happens, I’m comfortable with my English identity.
I’m Anglo-Celtic with a dash of Scandinavian — very common around my neck of the woods.
It will be interesting to see how the various nationalities within the UK respond to the sacrilege executed by the (Royal) Air Force (RAF) this Friday, the 17th July, a “day of infamy” as they say.
The RAF, in one of the most supine gestures in British/English history, has completely surrendered to the ‘Shriekers’ and desecrated the grave of ‘The Black Dog’ (TBD) the Black Labrador Retriever, immortalised as the wartime mascot of 617 Squadron, The Dambuster Squadron.
TBD whose owner Wing Commander Guy Gibson, VC, DSO, DFC, commanded the famous Damstbuster Raid, was killed by motor car outside RAF Scampton just hours before the Raid departed. TBD was buried inside the Airfield at midnight, just as the Raid was wreaking
havoc on the Mohne and other Dams. In a tribute, the radio code word, announcing a successful mission, was appositely also TBD.
Why the RAF saw fit to make such a pathetic gesture is beyond me. TBD’s grave is within RAF Scampton and therefore is almost inaccessible to the public.
We have had the RAF for 102 years, as a result of this act of barbarism it should be disbanded forthwith, as it has become, by its very actions a national disgrace. As they say in the wretched MoD, it is “no longer fit for purpose”.
Although I’m merely in the one of the Empire’s colonies your story almost brought a tear to my eye. My father used to tell me the story of the Dambusters and Gibson’s black dog like it was an Arthurian legend. But forgive me, I then got almost hallucinogenically confused when I looked up the story about TBD gravestone. First stop was the Guardian (fatal mistake, forgive me) and they referred to his name exclusively as “a racial slur”. I almost died spiritually at the thought that “The Black Dog” could be considered a racial slur (especially considering that there were no black people in sight). However on further investigation I found that his name was actually “n****r” (well, if that’s what N***** means. One can only guess, as this word has now become so sacred that it is apparently the only word in the Anglo world that can’t be uttered. I’m not sure if I’m allowed to spell it, even in this outstanding forum of free speech. Although “whiteness” or even simply “white”, now used mainly as racial slurs, are all the rage). So my question is, was he also referred to as TBD, or are you being especially chivalrous to our sensitive Woke Community so as to not make them “unsafe”? The latter would surprise me, but who knows in our strangely regressive era (and come to think of it, my father didn’t call him “n****r” either).
“England has always existed and always will.” Really? Even when most of its inhabitants are no longer recognisably English i.e imminently. Surely then it becomes merely a geographical expression?
Surely an exaggeration?
Look at the Census returns, and nor would I think Metternich agree.
However you do draw attention to the fact that slowly, dilution is taking place; None of us voted for any of this, in the Elections 1945,51,59,64 and so on.
Immigration was imposed, very much against the instincts of most of the country, hence the toxicity of the argument ever since.
Think you’ll find the white englsh are still the majority in England, by a factor of ten.
“White British ” rather than “White English” were the majority by a factor of 4 to 1 in England in 2011 (not 10 to 1) but in 2018 White British births in England and Wales were 59.5% and falling by 1% per annum. If that continues, and why would it not, White British will be a minority well within the lifetime of people now in their forties. I don’t think “imminently” was an exaggeration.
Exactly this, but that means the following is a little inaccurate:
England, like Scotland and Wales, is a nation but surely not a nation state. The state is the UK. England’s parliament became the UK parliament, and Scotland and Wales have assemblies but not sovereign parliaments (whatever the Scottish one is called). England is not unique in this.
“Great Britain always was an extension of England, which is why people historically used England and Britain interchangeably.” I always find it annoying when people from the USA refer to the British accent when they mean English.
I have spent years educating americans on the difference between ‘british’ ‘english’ and ‘UK’.
The whole pupose of the United Kingdom was to suppress English culture. For Example, that is the reason it is the only country of the union not to have a parliament of it’s own.
I recall, at some point, David Cameron claiming that he intended to create one.
The current trend to split England into regional authorities is precisely an attempt to divide and Balkanise the country. It has nothing to do with democracy or levelling the imbalance in the economy. The imbalance is caused by London, and London is no longer an English city, if it ever was.
Ed writes that England “is unique among European nations in not having a governing parliament of its own, a by-product of its historical relationship with its smaller neighbours.” That is debatable. A Bosniak nationalist, for example, would argue Bosniaks don’t have their own parliament, as they share the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with Bosnian Croats. Rather than a by-product of its long history, isn’t England not having its own parliament more immediately the result of the Blair Labour government devolved power to the other Home Nations but not to England? So it stems from a decision made less than a quarter of a century ago, a decision that can be easily revisited. There isn’t anyone whose job it is currently to speak for England. With an English parliament, that would clearly be the job of the English premier. There would be some problems having a federation where one province was clearly dominant, but that’s maybe not such a big deal. Flanders has more than half of the population of Belgium. A true UK federation could include provinces for the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. Seven provinces sounds like quite enough, Why add to their number?
One of the most quintessentially English institutions is the Church of England. Not the power it used to be,but nonetheless it’s still here and in many places quite vibrant as it seeks to fulfill its mission to England. I suppose it’s most traditional Englishness is to be found in our Cathedrals and in the music used for the worship of Almighty God and also in our village churches where just a few may meet for Evensong. But the Church of England is for all England,towns,cities,housing estates and suburbs.Wherever you live, English or not, it’s there for you.
An historical note. Interesting that from the beginning of the 11th. Century England has been ruled by men and women of foreign blood. For 50 years before 1066 it was the Danes.From 1066 it was the French. 1485 saw the accession of Henry Tudor of Wales, 1603 that of James Stuart of Scotland and in 1689 William of Orange of Holland. 1714 saw the accession of George of Hanover of Germany. Over the generations the blood has undergone some fascinating infusions from all over Europe, and England too, and given us our dear Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth the Second – the embodiment of England.
I think it depends a bit on how many generations you consider a family’s “blood” to be “foreign”. Having said this, I think aristocracies all over Europe often had different origins to the peasants and merchants they ruled. In the 7th Century, even the Anglo Saxons were “foreign blood”. Surely the Tudors were still basically descended fom Norman/Plantagenet French aristocracy? And the Hannoverians were descended from Stuarts, hence their claim. The success of German aristocracy in marrying into nearly all the European royal families, including our own, is another interesting story though.
If this is the writer’s definition of what it means to ‘English’, then count me out.
“a group of people united by a common culture.”
It will be interesting to see how the various nationalities within the UK respond to the sacrilege executed by the (Royal) Air Force (RAF) this Friday, the 17th July, a “day of infamy” as they say.
The RAF, in one of the most supine gestures in British/English history, has completely surrendered to the ‘Shriekers’ and desecrated the grave of ‘n****r’, the Black Labrador Retriever, immortalised as the wartime mascot of 617 Squadron, The Dambuster Squadron.
n****r, whose owner Wing Commander Guy Gibson, VC, DSO, DFC, commanded the famous Damstbuster Raid, was killed by motor car outside RAF Scampton just hours before the Raid departed. n****r was buried inside the Airfield at midnight, just as the Raid was reeking
havoc on the Mohne and other Dams. In a tribute, the radio code word, announcing a successful mission, was appositely also n****r.
Why the RAF saw fit to make such a pathetic gesture is beyond me. n****r’s grave is within RAF Scampton and therefore is almost inaccessible to the public.
We have had the RAF for 102 years, as a result of this act of barbarism it should be disbanded forthwith, as it has become, by its very actions a national disgrace. As they say in the wretched MoD, it is “no longer fit for purpose”