|Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister|
Re^2: Consideration for obscenityby Eliana (Scribe)
|on Feb 05, 2007 at 21:04 UTC||Need Help??|
I really cannot let this pass; you're over simplifying things in one of my pet subjects! :)
1) There is a very significant difference between 'the English being in charge' and 'it's ... still the same country. For example, I think no one would argue that Iraq was part of the United States during the time that the US was directly in control of the country, right?
2) Wales is more complex, but Scotland was unequivocably not an English province. Scotland was a self-governing, independent country (if often coerced into yielding to England on many issues) with its own monarch until the Scottish King James VI inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I. Even then England and Scotland mantained separate parliaments until the Acts of Union about 100 years later (the very early 1700s, I think). The Acts of Union was not an assimilation of Scotland into England, but the creation of a new entity "Great Britain".
3) Despite the power of the British Empire, it was a network of sovereign states, not of provinces - although, again, Britain had a great deal of power/influence in each country under its dominion... they were, however, still distinct countries. Consider, again, the power wielded by the United States, the influence it has over many other sovereign nations, but one cannot with truth say they are all part of the United States....
4) Wales, as I said, is more complex, and was certainly *treated* as a province after Edward I. Gwynedd (spelling?) was conquered in the late 13th century, but Wales was not officially annexed by England until Henry VII's reign. This annexation gave Welsh citizens (theoretical) equality under English law and (hurrah!) elminated the 'Marcher Lords' (the roles, not the individuals); it also, oddly enough, defined the borders of Wales...
I will try to clean up this post later today - we're taking our menagerie of little people to the zoo now!