Assisting The Electorate To Wake Up To The UK Government's Discrimination Against The People Of England.

Monday, October 01, 2007

English Civil War - Rewritten As "British"...

I note that many historical resources around the Internet are referring to what we call the "English Civil War" as the "British Civil War". Surely, civil wars only take place within unified nations, and as Britain did not then exist as a nation, this terminology is inaccurate? I'm not saying that only England was involved in the unrest (I know for a fact that Scotland has its own terms for the era), but from England's perspective "English civil war" was a perfectly legitimate title for this time span. Why should it now be erased?

And what kind of
National Archives nonsense is this?

Gallery 5: Why did Britain become a republic?


The primary focus here is on events from 1647-53 and the shock they caused in the kingdom. A secondary theme is that the execution of Charles and the setting up of the English republic was the result of the actions of a driven, minority group with a clear vision of the country they wanted to create. The existence and actions of these revolutionaries is sometimes overlooked.

Come on, dears, was it an English or British republic?

And then we have this:

Also, the “English” is a problem because it implies much more than “in England”. Even Conrad Russell, with his interest in the British problem, made the mistake of saying that before the entry of Scots and Irish units in 1643, the war was fought between Englishmen. Even before Mark Stoyle’s groundbreaking work in Soldiers and Strangers I was well aware that there were many non-English soldiers in the “English” armies. With his focus on the Welsh and Cornish, Stoyle has made the very concept of “England” look a lot more problematic than I used to think it was. It’s still useful as an arbitrary geographical boundary, but perhaps not much more than that.

This brand of academic, England denying twaddle I cannot understand at all. Show me a "pure" Cornishman and I'll probably faint (these "Cornishmen" were not a distinct nationality anyway) and if England is only useful as an arbitrary geographical boundary, why not Scotland and Wales?

Answers please...


  1. Some experts do refer to "British Civil WarS" - plural.

  2. True, but it still indicates that these civil wars were taking place in one nation. It is misleading. Britain did not exist then.

  3. I've actually had the misfortune to break bread with Mark Stoyle a couple of times and he doesn't like the English at all. He's written quite a lot about the "Cornish" - including for the BBC.

    The apologetic ramblings of the guy writing about "A Civil War In England" are pathetic and parody the very nature of Englishness. Tut, tut.

    No justice for England on post-devolution horizon I fear.

  4. It's misinformation - absolute nonsense. It implies that Britain and the British existed as nation and nationality before they actually did and Mark Stoyle's arguments are odd - just because the Welsh and the so-called "Cornish" (those charming non-racists of "pure" Celtic descent) fought in an English war (And Cornwall was/is part of England) doesn't mean that the English Civil War can be retitled.

    Lord help our kids being fed this nonsense - and nonsense it is. Who is paying for it? The poor taxpayers of England as usual? We're paying to have our country airbrushed out of history.

  5. It's all about eroding and ultimately eradicating English culture, society, history and identity, this is essential in the EUSSR takeover of England.