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?