The story goes that, while in hiding, Robert Bruce was inspired to go on fighting after seeing a spider struggle up its thread again and again- and eventually succeed.

 

In this context, i.e Bannockburn in the 14th century, it is imperative to differentiate between English and British.  But, in 1314, England and Scotland were separate kingdoms. So it was the English vs the Scots. British is more a modern construct.

 

Nowadays, your average person could easily make out the difference between English and British. British are crudely made up of the Welsh, English, northern irish and Scots. The English are people from England.

 

It gets tricky with the Anglo-Saxons, since a lot of them settled in what is now modern Scotland, which is why Scotland's greatest poet wrote in 'English', and only gets a bit clearer when on the one hand the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes kind of merged into one 'people', while on the other hand other Anglo-Saxons, Irish Scots and Highland Gaelic-speakers started seeing themselves as a different 'people'.

 

Mostly though that was a question of which king you recognised, so the medieval distinction between English and Scots is political rather than ethnic.

 

At any time though it ought to be permissible to refer to Welsh, Scots and English all as 'British' since they live in Britain. It's just thinking that English=British that is wrong.

 

 

 

Add to that the fact the English ruling class were entirely french and Gascony supplied many of men- at-arms. For simplicity we called the faction English, pertaining to the fact it was led by the English king (which was French by blood.)

 

Gcle is wrong as usual; how surprising! I hate when people try to complicate a trivial, simple concept. I believe Gcle must be a very confused individual in real life. No pun intended , just stating the obvious. I like to take cheap shots at Gcle. :) Everyone has his bete-noire.

 

Yes British is a modern construct; although Briton was a vague term, pertaining to people living on the British isle, usually irrelevent of ethnicity.

 

Common now, Gcle and I are buddies.  Aren't we Gcle? (turning to Gcle, giving him the evil eye) . Aren't we Gcle?

 

I've known Gcle for a couple of years now. He'll strike back, with his trademark: "Wrong. The british are ... etc." or "You are wrong ..." 

 

It's not like I'm hurling invective at Gcle. Besides, Gcle is sharp-witted individual.

 

You people are a little oversensitive. I mean, Gcle is a familiar, although there is little love lost between us. A little bit of plain-talking, roughhousing has never done any harm, just adding a little spice to the conversation.

 

It is a modern construct in the contemporary sense of the word. British as citizen of the United Kingdom. Prior to the establishment of the UK, in 1801, British or Briton was more a loose term--akin to the term Iberian-- which simply refers to the various peoples inhabitating the British Isles

 

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl   It is a modern construct in the contemporary sense of the word. British as citizen of the United Kingdom.

I think you're thinking of 'British' as used by other peoples.

 

'British' and 'citizen of the UK' are not the same concept at all. The concept of a 'citizen of the United Kingdom' only came into legal effect with the 1971 Immigration Act, and even now a British citizen is not necessarily a citizen of the UK.

 

But of course it's a contemporary construct 'in the contemporary sense'. The point is it's an ancient construct generally.  What else are you going to call the British Isles? Or, for that matter, the British climate, if you can bear to talk about it?

 

It's perfectly OK to call Castilians and Aragonese 'Spanish' in the middle ages as in any other period. It's perfectly OK to call Bavarians, Saxons, Prussians, 'Germans'  in the middle ages, and similarly it's perfectly correct to call the medieval Welsh, Cornish, Anglo-Saxon Scots and Gaelic Scots and English, 'British' as long as when you do it you are referring to all the inhabitants of the island (who do in fact have quite a lot in common culturally).

 

As I said what's wrong is to use the term when you are only referring to one or two of the British peoples. And that is wrong just as much today as it was in the Middle Ages.

[/QUOTE]

 

Prior to the establishment of the UK, in 1801, British or Briton was more a loose term--akin to the term Iberian-- which simply refers to the various peoples inhabitating the British Isles

 

As I said above, it's more akin to using the term 'Spanish' prior to 1700 or 'German' prior to 1871 or 'Italian' prior to 1861. Or 'Scandinavian' right up to today.

 

And I don't mind being insulted. It's usually a sign that someone has run out of arguments.

 

 

 

Which would make Quetzalcoatl the person most bereft of arguments on the whole forum......

 

Prior to the establishment of the UK, in 1801, British or Briton was more a loose term--akin to the term Iberian-- which simply refers to the various peoples inhabitating the British Isles

 

As I said above, it's more akin to using the term 'Spanish' prior to 1700 or 'German' prior to 1871 or 'Italian' prior to 1861. Or 'Scandinavian' right up to today.

 

And I don't mind being insulted. It's usually a sign that someone has run out of arguments.