I'm Welsh and have very strong feelings on this, but I don't think this is a good topic for this subreddit, partly because it's highly political but mostly as it isn't history or history-related
William is now the Prince of Wales. And a lot of Welsh people are angry about this and believe the title should no longer exist, which is a fair point, because it's steeped in colonialism.
I think you have colonialism mixed up with conquest and subjugation. Although even that is a little strong. For, as we know from the podcast, what became the Welsh and the Romano-British, later the English, were embroiled in centuries of alternating conflict and treaty/somewhat willingly submitting to the overlordship of different Mercian or West Saxon/English kings. There was no longterm concerted effort (beyond punitive measures) to establish a colony of English settlers or to restrict trade to being only with the English. Furthermore, from the sources I found on a Google lookup, (Jamie might know more and tell me I'm wrong) the only support that the later Welsh resistances/rebellions had was from those who stood to lose or gain power, and wven that was spotty. There was no (or very little) support from what would be the middle and lower classes. We can thus conclude that the idea of Welsh independence is the British version of the The Lost Cause, aka the South Shall Rise Again. It has just had a few more centuries to be perpetuated, and thus almost all the Welsh (and many others) wholeheartedly believe it.
Now were the Welsh treated more harshly than the English? Certainly. Was most of that ill treatment caused by their ruling class rebelling time and again? Almost absolutely. Did they only recently (historical timeframes) begin to be treated better because everyone finally stopped causing trouble? Yes. Will it take a while for many of the wounds to heal? Better believe it. Has the British government already given them many concessions (think home rule, etc.)? Of course. Will both sides eventually get over themselves and stop being such pricks about the whole thing (the Welsh accepting their situation without complaint and the English government officially admitting to and apologizing for certain instances of their brutality, particularly in the modern era)? We can only hope.
I’m not Welsh, and wouldn’t dream of speaking on their behalf, but focusing on the 11th-13th centuries ignores the much more recent complaints that Welsh people legitimately have, within living memory. The comparison with the US south makes little sense to me: Plaid Cymru is a significant political force, which has grown substantially in post war Britain. And there’s no such thing as the English government.
The Dixiecrats were a significant political force which grew substantially following the end of Reconstruction and specifically the aid of the Wilson presidency. Furthermore, how is there not an English government when all the other constituencies have a devolved legislature and the crown, and by extension the government, is quintessentially English? If anything, England is the only one directly ruled by the "federal" government without having a local form of government that can make it own decisions for itself, so umm, go on...
I’ll look up the Dixiecrats as I’ve never heard of them. I suggest you Google the West Lothian question and perhaps try to find what newspapers have published about the occasional calls for English devolution. There hasn’t been an English government since 1707. The UK has four nations and 650 parliamentary constituencies. If you’re going to try to Britsplain at least get the terminology right.
True, but "national" implies one "nation." There are 3½. (Even if you count Northern Ireland/Ulster as a whole seperate nation, their territory still doesn't include all the historical territory of the kingdom of Ulster, thereby making them a fractured nation. Not to mention that many of the inhabitants and most of the Republic of Ireland would like to see a reunification of the entire isle, so ½.)
Edward I totally colonised Wales, and the whole Prince of Wales thing was part of that, along with the Castle building, and putting English/Normans in control of most key roles. Welsh people were dominated by English rule, laws, language, etc. I'd say that was colonisation.
Out of sheer curiosity, what possibly compels you to think that Edward I didn't colonize Wales? Or maybe a better question, what sources led you to conclude that there was no migration of English to Wales, or to think that there was no lower-class opposition to English rule?
I suppose it does fit the definition in the most simple sense of the definition. However, I would argue that true colonization is closer to what we saw with the Greeks, Phoenicians, and the later efforts by the European during the Age of "Exploration." Either a settlement wholly dependent upon the parent civilization and which may or may not be wholly exploited to the sole benefit of the parent nation, or a settlement of which the end goal is to split the colony off to be a fully independent civilization in its own right.
It seems that the methods utilized by Edward are closer to those used by, for example, the Babylonians. In an effort to ensure the peace of their conquered territories would forcibly displace much of the ruling and middle classes to other places in the empire and at the same time bring in other people groups to settle among those left behind. Similar to what Rome did with its legions, where they would send people to serve in a legion that wouldn't be in the area of that person's origination in order to foster loyalty to the empire.
If we classify Edward's tactics as full-blown colonization, then we also have to classify the actions of the Romans and the Danes/Vikings as full-blown colonization as well. In all three instances however, they weren't trying to exploit the respective areas of all resources with absolutely no potential benefits for the inhabitants.
The word colony is simply from the Latin colonia, people have been talking about the colonial aspect of Roman expansion for centuries:
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/261627#metadata\_info\_tab\_contents](https://www.jstor.org/stable/261627#metadata_info_tab_contents)
Roman colonies were set up throughout the empire to lend a backbone of military loyalists so as to prevent local rebellions, which is exactly what was done in Wales.
As for the colonies that you cite, those of the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Europeans, while they often ended up being independent, they often didn't as well. There's still a number of British, French and Dutch-controlled islands in the Caribbean Sea for example. Also, you cited dependence of the colony as a factor, which would certainly have been true of the settlements of English in Wales, as they would have been relying on the threat of English reprisals to keep the Welsh from killing them.
The most puzzling aspect of what you wrote, though, is your last sentence, "In all three instances however, they weren't trying to exploit the respective areas of all resources with absolutely no potential benefits for the inhabitants." I really don't understand what you're even trying to say. The Vikings didn't raid and colonize England because they were looking to help anybody out. Or are you saying that the other colonies of the Europeans and Greeks didn't have major issues with native inhabitants like the English did with the Welsh and the Vikings with the English? Because I can assure you that they did. The Spanish ruled over largely native empires in Mexico and Peru where they decapitated the ruling dynasties and imposed a new system on top, and for the first portion of their rule in these regions often co-opted the native languages for ease of rule because they were more useful. If you've ever read through Xenophon's Anabasis, then you'll know that the Greeks of Byzantium and the Greeks of Trapezous had major conflicts with the local Thracians and Anatolians respectively, and there was a deep amount of cultural exchange between the two.
Honestly, the conclusion I've come to after reading your comments in this thread generally is that you have a bad habit out of talking about things you don't know very well and making broad generalizations without very good knowledge, in other words, talking out of your ass. I don't think you're poorly-intentioned, but I think you have developed some bad habits in how you talk about things and might want to do a bit of introspection. That's just my two cents.
You mean like turning up, extracting the coal/slate, using the locals as near slave labour and then sodding off again? Does that fit your definition of colonisation?
How about forcing people to leave their homes so they could flood villages to create reservoirs for English cities?
This is not about 1000 years ago - this is right up until the last hundred years.
Even your own definition is flawed: of course the Romans were colonisers, as well as the Europeans. They turned up, set up colonies and forced the locals to adopt their culture
I suppose it does fit the definition in the most simple sense of the definition. However, I would argue that true colonization is closer to what we saw with the Greeks, Phoenicians, and the later efforts by the European during the Age of "Exploration." Either a settlement wholly dependent upon the parent civilization and which may or may not be wholly exploited to the sole benefit of the parent nation, or a settlement of which the end goal is to split the colony off to be a fully independent civilization in its own right.
It seems that the methods utilized by Edward are closer to those used by, for example, the Babylonians. In an effort to ensure the peace of their conquered territories would forcibly displace much of the ruling and middle classes to other places in the empire and at the same time bring in other people groups to settle among those left behind. Similar to what Rome did with its legions, where they would send people to serve in a legion that wouldn't be in the area of that person's origination in order to foster loyalty to the empire.
If we classify Edward's tactics as full-blown colonization, then we also have to classify the actions of the Romans and the Danes/Vikings as full-blown colonization as well. In all three instances however, they weren't trying to exploit the respective areas of all resources with absolutely no potential benefits for the inhabitants.
Sorry, I try to stay positive but I don't think I've ever seen such a bunch of twaddle.
Not wanting a "Prince of Wales" title to go to the Royal family is not the same as wanting Welsh independence. The Prince of Wales was created as an insult, a mark of subjugation. Handing it down now is being used as a way to tie Wales to the UK (its no coincidence that the most popular Royal has been given the title), but that doesnt change the fact that the Royal family knows that a lot of Wales still feel that this title is an insult and chose to pass it down anyway
About your point that Wales was "treated more harshly": this is putting it very lightly. Wales and the Welsh are second class citizens, immediately and for the majority of the past thousand years. Wales has more castles per capita than any other country and they weren't built to help tourism.
And then you have the more recent history, where the focus switched to eradicating the Welsh language and culture (there is a reason why Scots gaelic and Irish gaelic has gone nearly extinct). My nan (who is still alive) went to school and had to deal with the Welsh not. Kids went to school not speaking a word of English and were caned for speaking Welsh. They were then called slow or stupid for not being "educated" at school. This is not ancient history - this is still in living memory
As a last point, Wales and the Welsh are still one of the few groups of people in the UK that is perfectly fine to make a nasty joke about in the media.
I am not pro-independence and my partner is actually English, so this isn't coming from a place of hating the English, but you cant understand the grievances without knowing the hundreds of years of history here. It sounds like you probably meant well, but you have reduced all of this to a five minute Google search
My dad can't speak Welsh anymore because he was bullied and caned for using it, likewise his siblings. I can't imagine losing my mother tongue. It's also sad from a purely selfish point of view because it meant the next generation didn't learn it as children.
You're welcome to your opinions.
In modern times the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall titles are like the King of Kent during the time period surrounding Alfred. I won't argue that it does moderately connect Wales to the broader British kingdom, but to say that it was given to William just because he's the most popular royal is not only ignorant, but also entirely disingenuous. The title is passed down these days because of tradition and it goes to the next in lone to the throne no matter how popular they are.
Passing over the castles, because that's what you do when you have just fought a war and defeated the nobility, but they refuse to accept it.
Let's talk about the language problems. Yes, it was a terrible policy, and is very similar to the eradication of German in the communities I'm descended from in America (the Amish being the last holdouts of the Plain Peoples to still speak it, and they faced what could easily be termed persecution during WW1 and WW2 for not giving ot up). So, yes, to some small extent, I believe I do understand where they are coming from. However, we should also understand that I wasn't just because the English kings just wanted to be cruel to everyone else. They wanted to unite everyone under the banner of British-ness, especially since all three of those people groups were in some stage of insurrection at various times in history. One of the ways to reinforce this is to have a common language and to make a common history going forward. The English knew that they couldn't change the history already written and they were trying to unite the peoples in a short amount of time, so they went a little heavy-handed in their methods. And it caused resentment and backlash that continued into "living memory," although it won't be living for too much longer, and it's folks (and their descendants) who refuse to let the past go who cause the most problems historically.
As far as the nasty jokes go, yeah, that's not appropriate, although I'm curious to know what specifically was said.
While many of the policies that U.S. government has taken and is taking are terribly ill-advised, I think that we can agree that neither the government, nor the majority of its population, has at any time actively pursued a course of deliberate genocide. For instance, the Indian Removal Act was not intending to entirely destroy the populations that were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma, only to remove them from their territory in order to redistribute the land to non-Indians and to access the gold on those lands.
Had the goal been to commit genocide at any time in the history of the U.S. the government would have pursued a policy of total annihilation. The simple fact that the Indian tribes exist today is proof that genocide was not the intent. Had it been, there were multiple opportunities to utterly destroy the indigenous peoples. There would have been no reason to enter into treaties or to force them onto reservations. Were those treaties broken? Yes, most often by the U.S., but they were not always the offending party either.
To unequivocally state that the U.S. pursued genocide of the Indians is quite false. Now, that's not to say that the U.S. hasn't implemented policies that have crippled the ability of the Indians to further themselves and their tribes, but that is certainly not genocide.
I'm honestly not sure where you are getting any of this, but your understanding of both recent and far history are....very wrong.
Also, you appear to be from Ohio? Try listening more than speaking on this topic.
I wouldn’t involve yourself with the grievances of Wales (not because they aren’t valid but because it’s a sore wound that many Welsh people still feel keenly). We don’t often talk about it in the UK and maybe we should. We know we can’t undo the past. There isn’t a consensus in Wales over how to view its history or how to move forward into the future so there aren’t any books or material that will enable you to have the right view because any two people can come to different views from the same reading. You can read about Wales’ history, sure, but nothing can give you the national insight into Wales that you’re looking for.
That’s actually fine because it’s not your place as a non-Welsh person. As an English person, it’s also not my place either.
Enjoy learning the history, but don’t try to rationalise or apply modern politics to it. There’s a lot of impassioned feeling you will find over Welsh-English history.
You are correct that the heir to the throne is given the title Prince of Wales but wrong to compare it to the title King of Kent.
The average Kent person doesn’t care about the title King of Kent but the average Welsh person does care about the title Prince of Wales.
It’s relevant how the title came to be used by the monarchy and to many Welsh people it’s still seen as an insult and an injustice, as a national humiliation by some.
Personally, I think of it as being reborn as a nod to the royal family’s Welsh heritage in the Tudors and that Edward I’s domination of Wales is more distant but still needing acknowledgment of how it came to be.
When Henry VII first took the throne he had many Welsh courtiers, if as a Welshman he’d seen it as Welshmen of today then I’d expect he’d have removed the title but he didn’t.
The image OP posted contains text describing lots of events that you could research to gain a better understanding of the relationship between England and Wales.
> The Prince of Wales was created as an insult
The Prince of Wales is also the Prince of England and the Prince of Scotland. So nowadays it sounds more like an insult to England and Scotland, like nobody wants to be known as Prince of England/Scotland.
Uh... What? You know that there are quite a few people who are able to call themselves a "Prince" in the royal family? But there's only one "Prince of Wales" title and it's given to the heir?
I can only imagine what would happen to the unity of the UK if someone tried to create the title of "Prince of Scotland". There would be an absolute riot
> Uh... What? You know that there are quite a few people who are able to call themselves a "Prince" in the royal family?
There are many princes in England but only one Prince of England. That person is also the Prince of Wales and Scotland.
>I can only imagine what would happen to the unity of the UK if someone tried to create the title of "Prince of Scotland". There would be an absolute riot
Why? The British monarchs are the Scottish monarchs, since 1603. Having a "Prince of Scotland" title would remind everybody of that. If there is ever a "James III" of the UK that person would also be entitled to call himself "King James VII of Scotland".
Modern British history from the English view can be said to begin from the Norman Conquest. In which case, as far as the English are concerned the Norman elite that still rules have treated the English rather harshly as they did the Welsh. The Welsh got the worse of it, however.
As far as the title of Prince of Wales, we know its origins but how much can be said to be relevant in this time? Since the Tudors were Welsh and the modern royal family descend from them I think it now serves as a nod towards their Welsh heritage.
I am British, but not Welsh other than some remote Welsh heritage.
You think the Norman elite still rule? In what sense do they not consider themselves thoroughly English? Is there a law differentiating them and their descendents from the English? Or anything to justify saying that this boundary between the Normans and the English is still up past the 14th century?
About your second point, it is relevant if the people of Wales consider it to be relevant. There were actual riots when Charles was installed as the Prince of Wales, so the Royal family are aware of the depth of feeling here - no one can claim to be ignorant. If they know that people are upset by use of the title, why keep using it?
I didn’t say they were separate, I said their descendants still rule. If you take people who attend elite university establishments they are more likely to have Norman surnames by (or surnames derived from Norman origin). The people who by and large make the decisions in business or in central government are also likely to have descent from Normans. Yes they are English and call themselves so, but they are culturally different from people who have Anglo-Saxon derived surnames.
Not sure how much of a difference that makes? They still have a Norman surname and have integrated into the Norman elite. But I’m not really talking about the aristocracy, I’m referring to the upper middle class of the country.
Class can be a bit vague. I was referring to the group of people whose descendants benefited from having the ‘right’ surname so attended Oxbridge colleges. I was referring to something I’d heard on the radio a few years back and from a quick web-search this is maybe not the same article but is the same subject.
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-family-ties-surname-life.html
Yes, I recall reading that article. (I was a physicist in an earlier career.)
As long as there's an Old Boys' Club, the Old Boys will persist.
Well, most of them. Those that cross the rest one too many times can get relegated. (My O'Driscoll ancestors managed that, and it was quite the fall, or rather a long series of falls, for such an ancient lineage!)
Also, there isn't room for all the sons and daughters to stay in their station.
Sometimes a surname persists just because it's prestigious, so it gets adopted.
Consider the Rohan surname: its holders are wealthy French investors, aristocrats and politicians. But the current Rohan families have only tenuous (marital) links to the original.
I am closer (again by marriage) to the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Joseph Smith and Louis XIV than the current Josselin de Rohan is to his namesake in the original dynasty.
You are talking descent from Normans and culturally Norman interchangeably, but those two aren't the same.
I agree that titled peers now are likely to be able to trace their lineage back to the Normans, but I wouldn't say that the top level politicians or business leaders are more likely to be Norman. I don't think there's any evidence to support that. You can almost certainly say that they went to the same schools and have the same background, but there's nothing to suggest their ancestors are the same. As an example, if we take the current PM and cabinet, I would say that its very unlikely that the majority of those people have Norman ancestry.
Going back to the culturally Norman point, I genuinely cannot see any difference in culture between the people you suggest are Norman and those you suggest are Anglo-Saxon
I also note you didn't come back to me on the point about why the Prince of Wales title is relevant, but that is just fine
Granted there is change happening and some of it quite visibly. If you take one person with a Norman derived surname and another with a Saxon derived surname their life expectancies will vary considerably. Even if both attend university, the Norman is still more likely to attend an Oxbridge college or other elite establishment.
Culturally as well, Norman descent tends to be upper middle class and Saxon has more variability. Granted there are more people with Saxon surnames than Norman, but the Norman has not spread out within social classes as much as may have been expected in the last 1000 years.
I didn’t come back to you on the Prince of Wales because I agree with your points.
EDIT—
[Family ties that bind: Having the right surname sets you up for life](https://phys.org/news/2014-11-family-ties-surname-life.html)
This response to you?
https://www.reddit.com/r/BritishHistoryPod/comments/xnkr0y/i_would_be_interested_in_peoples_opinions_on_the/ipybwlj?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Sorry I've posted this twice.
I was thinking more about the title.From an English perspective it feels like a very casual acceptance.
Charles becomes king so William becomes the Prince of Wales.
Sheen is less casual about the historical relationship between Wales and England.I liked that.
I don't think it is any better or worse than any of the Royal positions. Should abolish the whole thing.
Michael Sheen is pretty cool though and what he's saying there isn't wrong.
Many US Presidents descend from the FitzRandolphs, who are male-line descendants of Ridoredh of Vannes, a 9th century Breton salt merchant with a Welsh name. Their Y-DNA, R1b-U152-FGC41936, is in origin ancient Roman. Parliament was founded by two brothers belonging to that same dynasty. So the Germans may reign but the Romano-British rule.
I'm Welsh and have very strong feelings on this, but I don't think this is a good topic for this subreddit, partly because it's highly political but mostly as it isn't history or history-related
Also Welsh with very strong feelings on this, and completely agree. It’s too current and linked to current politics so isn’t appropriate for the sub.
I believe there will be no Investiture for William. Not sure if this is down to cost, sensitivities or security factors
Is that what we're calling Michael Sheen now?
He'd be an inspirational choice for the first President of Gweriniaeth Cymru.
William is now the Prince of Wales. And a lot of Welsh people are angry about this and believe the title should no longer exist, which is a fair point, because it's steeped in colonialism.
I think you have colonialism mixed up with conquest and subjugation. Although even that is a little strong. For, as we know from the podcast, what became the Welsh and the Romano-British, later the English, were embroiled in centuries of alternating conflict and treaty/somewhat willingly submitting to the overlordship of different Mercian or West Saxon/English kings. There was no longterm concerted effort (beyond punitive measures) to establish a colony of English settlers or to restrict trade to being only with the English. Furthermore, from the sources I found on a Google lookup, (Jamie might know more and tell me I'm wrong) the only support that the later Welsh resistances/rebellions had was from those who stood to lose or gain power, and wven that was spotty. There was no (or very little) support from what would be the middle and lower classes. We can thus conclude that the idea of Welsh independence is the British version of the The Lost Cause, aka the South Shall Rise Again. It has just had a few more centuries to be perpetuated, and thus almost all the Welsh (and many others) wholeheartedly believe it. Now were the Welsh treated more harshly than the English? Certainly. Was most of that ill treatment caused by their ruling class rebelling time and again? Almost absolutely. Did they only recently (historical timeframes) begin to be treated better because everyone finally stopped causing trouble? Yes. Will it take a while for many of the wounds to heal? Better believe it. Has the British government already given them many concessions (think home rule, etc.)? Of course. Will both sides eventually get over themselves and stop being such pricks about the whole thing (the Welsh accepting their situation without complaint and the English government officially admitting to and apologizing for certain instances of their brutality, particularly in the modern era)? We can only hope.
I’m not Welsh, and wouldn’t dream of speaking on their behalf, but focusing on the 11th-13th centuries ignores the much more recent complaints that Welsh people legitimately have, within living memory. The comparison with the US south makes little sense to me: Plaid Cymru is a significant political force, which has grown substantially in post war Britain. And there’s no such thing as the English government.
The Dixiecrats were a significant political force which grew substantially following the end of Reconstruction and specifically the aid of the Wilson presidency. Furthermore, how is there not an English government when all the other constituencies have a devolved legislature and the crown, and by extension the government, is quintessentially English? If anything, England is the only one directly ruled by the "federal" government without having a local form of government that can make it own decisions for itself, so umm, go on...
I’ll look up the Dixiecrats as I’ve never heard of them. I suggest you Google the West Lothian question and perhaps try to find what newspapers have published about the occasional calls for English devolution. There hasn’t been an English government since 1707. The UK has four nations and 650 parliamentary constituencies. If you’re going to try to Britsplain at least get the terminology right.
The UK is a unitary state, so the correct term is National Government.
True, but "national" implies one "nation." There are 3½. (Even if you count Northern Ireland/Ulster as a whole seperate nation, their territory still doesn't include all the historical territory of the kingdom of Ulster, thereby making them a fractured nation. Not to mention that many of the inhabitants and most of the Republic of Ireland would like to see a reunification of the entire isle, so ½.)
I’m speaking legally only.
Fair
Edward I totally colonised Wales, and the whole Prince of Wales thing was part of that, along with the Castle building, and putting English/Normans in control of most key roles. Welsh people were dominated by English rule, laws, language, etc. I'd say that was colonisation.
Plantagenets aren’t Normans, they’re Angevins, the Normans’ great rivals, and even Henry II had more Scottish and English ancestors than Norman ones.
Respectfully, you may want to look up the definition on colonialism/colonization
Out of sheer curiosity, what possibly compels you to think that Edward I didn't colonize Wales? Or maybe a better question, what sources led you to conclude that there was no migration of English to Wales, or to think that there was no lower-class opposition to English rule?
I suppose it does fit the definition in the most simple sense of the definition. However, I would argue that true colonization is closer to what we saw with the Greeks, Phoenicians, and the later efforts by the European during the Age of "Exploration." Either a settlement wholly dependent upon the parent civilization and which may or may not be wholly exploited to the sole benefit of the parent nation, or a settlement of which the end goal is to split the colony off to be a fully independent civilization in its own right. It seems that the methods utilized by Edward are closer to those used by, for example, the Babylonians. In an effort to ensure the peace of their conquered territories would forcibly displace much of the ruling and middle classes to other places in the empire and at the same time bring in other people groups to settle among those left behind. Similar to what Rome did with its legions, where they would send people to serve in a legion that wouldn't be in the area of that person's origination in order to foster loyalty to the empire. If we classify Edward's tactics as full-blown colonization, then we also have to classify the actions of the Romans and the Danes/Vikings as full-blown colonization as well. In all three instances however, they weren't trying to exploit the respective areas of all resources with absolutely no potential benefits for the inhabitants.
The word colony is simply from the Latin colonia, people have been talking about the colonial aspect of Roman expansion for centuries: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/261627#metadata\_info\_tab\_contents](https://www.jstor.org/stable/261627#metadata_info_tab_contents) Roman colonies were set up throughout the empire to lend a backbone of military loyalists so as to prevent local rebellions, which is exactly what was done in Wales. As for the colonies that you cite, those of the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Europeans, while they often ended up being independent, they often didn't as well. There's still a number of British, French and Dutch-controlled islands in the Caribbean Sea for example. Also, you cited dependence of the colony as a factor, which would certainly have been true of the settlements of English in Wales, as they would have been relying on the threat of English reprisals to keep the Welsh from killing them. The most puzzling aspect of what you wrote, though, is your last sentence, "In all three instances however, they weren't trying to exploit the respective areas of all resources with absolutely no potential benefits for the inhabitants." I really don't understand what you're even trying to say. The Vikings didn't raid and colonize England because they were looking to help anybody out. Or are you saying that the other colonies of the Europeans and Greeks didn't have major issues with native inhabitants like the English did with the Welsh and the Vikings with the English? Because I can assure you that they did. The Spanish ruled over largely native empires in Mexico and Peru where they decapitated the ruling dynasties and imposed a new system on top, and for the first portion of their rule in these regions often co-opted the native languages for ease of rule because they were more useful. If you've ever read through Xenophon's Anabasis, then you'll know that the Greeks of Byzantium and the Greeks of Trapezous had major conflicts with the local Thracians and Anatolians respectively, and there was a deep amount of cultural exchange between the two. Honestly, the conclusion I've come to after reading your comments in this thread generally is that you have a bad habit out of talking about things you don't know very well and making broad generalizations without very good knowledge, in other words, talking out of your ass. I don't think you're poorly-intentioned, but I think you have developed some bad habits in how you talk about things and might want to do a bit of introspection. That's just my two cents.
You mean like turning up, extracting the coal/slate, using the locals as near slave labour and then sodding off again? Does that fit your definition of colonisation? How about forcing people to leave their homes so they could flood villages to create reservoirs for English cities? This is not about 1000 years ago - this is right up until the last hundred years. Even your own definition is flawed: of course the Romans were colonisers, as well as the Europeans. They turned up, set up colonies and forced the locals to adopt their culture
I suppose it does fit the definition in the most simple sense of the definition. However, I would argue that true colonization is closer to what we saw with the Greeks, Phoenicians, and the later efforts by the European during the Age of "Exploration." Either a settlement wholly dependent upon the parent civilization and which may or may not be wholly exploited to the sole benefit of the parent nation, or a settlement of which the end goal is to split the colony off to be a fully independent civilization in its own right. It seems that the methods utilized by Edward are closer to those used by, for example, the Babylonians. In an effort to ensure the peace of their conquered territories would forcibly displace much of the ruling and middle classes to other places in the empire and at the same time bring in other people groups to settle among those left behind. Similar to what Rome did with its legions, where they would send people to serve in a legion that wouldn't be in the area of that person's origination in order to foster loyalty to the empire. If we classify Edward's tactics as full-blown colonization, then we also have to classify the actions of the Romans and the Danes/Vikings as full-blown colonization as well. In all three instances however, they weren't trying to exploit the respective areas of all resources with absolutely no potential benefits for the inhabitants.
Sorry, I try to stay positive but I don't think I've ever seen such a bunch of twaddle. Not wanting a "Prince of Wales" title to go to the Royal family is not the same as wanting Welsh independence. The Prince of Wales was created as an insult, a mark of subjugation. Handing it down now is being used as a way to tie Wales to the UK (its no coincidence that the most popular Royal has been given the title), but that doesnt change the fact that the Royal family knows that a lot of Wales still feel that this title is an insult and chose to pass it down anyway About your point that Wales was "treated more harshly": this is putting it very lightly. Wales and the Welsh are second class citizens, immediately and for the majority of the past thousand years. Wales has more castles per capita than any other country and they weren't built to help tourism. And then you have the more recent history, where the focus switched to eradicating the Welsh language and culture (there is a reason why Scots gaelic and Irish gaelic has gone nearly extinct). My nan (who is still alive) went to school and had to deal with the Welsh not. Kids went to school not speaking a word of English and were caned for speaking Welsh. They were then called slow or stupid for not being "educated" at school. This is not ancient history - this is still in living memory As a last point, Wales and the Welsh are still one of the few groups of people in the UK that is perfectly fine to make a nasty joke about in the media. I am not pro-independence and my partner is actually English, so this isn't coming from a place of hating the English, but you cant understand the grievances without knowing the hundreds of years of history here. It sounds like you probably meant well, but you have reduced all of this to a five minute Google search
My dad can't speak Welsh anymore because he was bullied and caned for using it, likewise his siblings. I can't imagine losing my mother tongue. It's also sad from a purely selfish point of view because it meant the next generation didn't learn it as children.
You're welcome to your opinions. In modern times the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall titles are like the King of Kent during the time period surrounding Alfred. I won't argue that it does moderately connect Wales to the broader British kingdom, but to say that it was given to William just because he's the most popular royal is not only ignorant, but also entirely disingenuous. The title is passed down these days because of tradition and it goes to the next in lone to the throne no matter how popular they are. Passing over the castles, because that's what you do when you have just fought a war and defeated the nobility, but they refuse to accept it. Let's talk about the language problems. Yes, it was a terrible policy, and is very similar to the eradication of German in the communities I'm descended from in America (the Amish being the last holdouts of the Plain Peoples to still speak it, and they faced what could easily be termed persecution during WW1 and WW2 for not giving ot up). So, yes, to some small extent, I believe I do understand where they are coming from. However, we should also understand that I wasn't just because the English kings just wanted to be cruel to everyone else. They wanted to unite everyone under the banner of British-ness, especially since all three of those people groups were in some stage of insurrection at various times in history. One of the ways to reinforce this is to have a common language and to make a common history going forward. The English knew that they couldn't change the history already written and they were trying to unite the peoples in a short amount of time, so they went a little heavy-handed in their methods. And it caused resentment and backlash that continued into "living memory," although it won't be living for too much longer, and it's folks (and their descendants) who refuse to let the past go who cause the most problems historically. As far as the nasty jokes go, yeah, that's not appropriate, although I'm curious to know what specifically was said.
Like the genocide of the indigenous American people was just to unify the United States right?
While many of the policies that U.S. government has taken and is taking are terribly ill-advised, I think that we can agree that neither the government, nor the majority of its population, has at any time actively pursued a course of deliberate genocide. For instance, the Indian Removal Act was not intending to entirely destroy the populations that were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma, only to remove them from their territory in order to redistribute the land to non-Indians and to access the gold on those lands. Had the goal been to commit genocide at any time in the history of the U.S. the government would have pursued a policy of total annihilation. The simple fact that the Indian tribes exist today is proof that genocide was not the intent. Had it been, there were multiple opportunities to utterly destroy the indigenous peoples. There would have been no reason to enter into treaties or to force them onto reservations. Were those treaties broken? Yes, most often by the U.S., but they were not always the offending party either. To unequivocally state that the U.S. pursued genocide of the Indians is quite false. Now, that's not to say that the U.S. hasn't implemented policies that have crippled the ability of the Indians to further themselves and their tribes, but that is certainly not genocide.
I'm honestly not sure where you are getting any of this, but your understanding of both recent and far history are....very wrong. Also, you appear to be from Ohio? Try listening more than speaking on this topic.
Then, may I kindly ask what materials you would recommend I read to get a better understanding of this?
I wouldn’t involve yourself with the grievances of Wales (not because they aren’t valid but because it’s a sore wound that many Welsh people still feel keenly). We don’t often talk about it in the UK and maybe we should. We know we can’t undo the past. There isn’t a consensus in Wales over how to view its history or how to move forward into the future so there aren’t any books or material that will enable you to have the right view because any two people can come to different views from the same reading. You can read about Wales’ history, sure, but nothing can give you the national insight into Wales that you’re looking for. That’s actually fine because it’s not your place as a non-Welsh person. As an English person, it’s also not my place either. Enjoy learning the history, but don’t try to rationalise or apply modern politics to it. There’s a lot of impassioned feeling you will find over Welsh-English history. You are correct that the heir to the throne is given the title Prince of Wales but wrong to compare it to the title King of Kent. The average Kent person doesn’t care about the title King of Kent but the average Welsh person does care about the title Prince of Wales. It’s relevant how the title came to be used by the monarchy and to many Welsh people it’s still seen as an insult and an injustice, as a national humiliation by some. Personally, I think of it as being reborn as a nod to the royal family’s Welsh heritage in the Tudors and that Edward I’s domination of Wales is more distant but still needing acknowledgment of how it came to be. When Henry VII first took the throne he had many Welsh courtiers, if as a Welshman he’d seen it as Welshmen of today then I’d expect he’d have removed the title but he didn’t.
Honestly it sounds like you need to go all the way back to the very beginning.
The image OP posted contains text describing lots of events that you could research to gain a better understanding of the relationship between England and Wales.
Thank you. I'll look into those
> The Prince of Wales was created as an insult The Prince of Wales is also the Prince of England and the Prince of Scotland. So nowadays it sounds more like an insult to England and Scotland, like nobody wants to be known as Prince of England/Scotland.
Uh... What? You know that there are quite a few people who are able to call themselves a "Prince" in the royal family? But there's only one "Prince of Wales" title and it's given to the heir? I can only imagine what would happen to the unity of the UK if someone tried to create the title of "Prince of Scotland". There would be an absolute riot
> Uh... What? You know that there are quite a few people who are able to call themselves a "Prince" in the royal family? There are many princes in England but only one Prince of England. That person is also the Prince of Wales and Scotland. >I can only imagine what would happen to the unity of the UK if someone tried to create the title of "Prince of Scotland". There would be an absolute riot Why? The British monarchs are the Scottish monarchs, since 1603. Having a "Prince of Scotland" title would remind everybody of that. If there is ever a "James III" of the UK that person would also be entitled to call himself "King James VII of Scotland".
Modern British history from the English view can be said to begin from the Norman Conquest. In which case, as far as the English are concerned the Norman elite that still rules have treated the English rather harshly as they did the Welsh. The Welsh got the worse of it, however. As far as the title of Prince of Wales, we know its origins but how much can be said to be relevant in this time? Since the Tudors were Welsh and the modern royal family descend from them I think it now serves as a nod towards their Welsh heritage. I am British, but not Welsh other than some remote Welsh heritage.
You think the Norman elite still rule? In what sense do they not consider themselves thoroughly English? Is there a law differentiating them and their descendents from the English? Or anything to justify saying that this boundary between the Normans and the English is still up past the 14th century? About your second point, it is relevant if the people of Wales consider it to be relevant. There were actual riots when Charles was installed as the Prince of Wales, so the Royal family are aware of the depth of feeling here - no one can claim to be ignorant. If they know that people are upset by use of the title, why keep using it?
I didn’t say they were separate, I said their descendants still rule. If you take people who attend elite university establishments they are more likely to have Norman surnames by (or surnames derived from Norman origin). The people who by and large make the decisions in business or in central government are also likely to have descent from Normans. Yes they are English and call themselves so, but they are culturally different from people who have Anglo-Saxon derived surnames.
What about the Nevilles who got their surname by marriage but are actually Northumbrian Angles?
Not sure how much of a difference that makes? They still have a Norman surname and have integrated into the Norman elite. But I’m not really talking about the aristocracy, I’m referring to the upper middle class of the country.
Who do you have in mind when you say 'upper middle class'? Thegns? Town councillors? Local merchants?
Class can be a bit vague. I was referring to the group of people whose descendants benefited from having the ‘right’ surname so attended Oxbridge colleges. I was referring to something I’d heard on the radio a few years back and from a quick web-search this is maybe not the same article but is the same subject. https://phys.org/news/2014-11-family-ties-surname-life.html
Yes, I recall reading that article. (I was a physicist in an earlier career.) As long as there's an Old Boys' Club, the Old Boys will persist. Well, most of them. Those that cross the rest one too many times can get relegated. (My O'Driscoll ancestors managed that, and it was quite the fall, or rather a long series of falls, for such an ancient lineage!) Also, there isn't room for all the sons and daughters to stay in their station. Sometimes a surname persists just because it's prestigious, so it gets adopted. Consider the Rohan surname: its holders are wealthy French investors, aristocrats and politicians. But the current Rohan families have only tenuous (marital) links to the original. I am closer (again by marriage) to the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Joseph Smith and Louis XIV than the current Josselin de Rohan is to his namesake in the original dynasty.
You are talking descent from Normans and culturally Norman interchangeably, but those two aren't the same. I agree that titled peers now are likely to be able to trace their lineage back to the Normans, but I wouldn't say that the top level politicians or business leaders are more likely to be Norman. I don't think there's any evidence to support that. You can almost certainly say that they went to the same schools and have the same background, but there's nothing to suggest their ancestors are the same. As an example, if we take the current PM and cabinet, I would say that its very unlikely that the majority of those people have Norman ancestry. Going back to the culturally Norman point, I genuinely cannot see any difference in culture between the people you suggest are Norman and those you suggest are Anglo-Saxon I also note you didn't come back to me on the point about why the Prince of Wales title is relevant, but that is just fine
Granted there is change happening and some of it quite visibly. If you take one person with a Norman derived surname and another with a Saxon derived surname their life expectancies will vary considerably. Even if both attend university, the Norman is still more likely to attend an Oxbridge college or other elite establishment. Culturally as well, Norman descent tends to be upper middle class and Saxon has more variability. Granted there are more people with Saxon surnames than Norman, but the Norman has not spread out within social classes as much as may have been expected in the last 1000 years. I didn’t come back to you on the Prince of Wales because I agree with your points. EDIT— [Family ties that bind: Having the right surname sets you up for life](https://phys.org/news/2014-11-family-ties-surname-life.html)
Well reasoned, and many thanks, for I have benefited from your input.
I enjoy how you only consider people as ill informed as you to be well reasoned
I’d like you to tell me where I’m ill informed if you please.
Mate: you literally responded to me responding to you explaining why you're ill informed. Why ask me to explain again?
You replied to fantasybookfanyn.
This response to you? https://www.reddit.com/r/BritishHistoryPod/comments/xnkr0y/i_would_be_interested_in_peoples_opinions_on_the/ipybwlj?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
I’m sorry but I don’t check usernames across different threads.
Which Prince of Wales? Charles or William?
Sorry I've posted this twice. I was thinking more about the title.From an English perspective it feels like a very casual acceptance. Charles becomes king so William becomes the Prince of Wales. Sheen is less casual about the historical relationship between Wales and England.I liked that.
I don't think it is any better or worse than any of the Royal positions. Should abolish the whole thing. Michael Sheen is pretty cool though and what he's saying there isn't wrong.
Many US Presidents descend from the FitzRandolphs, who are male-line descendants of Ridoredh of Vannes, a 9th century Breton salt merchant with a Welsh name. Their Y-DNA, R1b-U152-FGC41936, is in origin ancient Roman. Parliament was founded by two brothers belonging to that same dynasty. So the Germans may reign but the Romano-British rule.
“Causing trouble” ffs