Hmm...English independence much?

[Ashk. Ashina Zelaku]

Who here thinks that England should go back to be an independent country again, instead of just a province of Britain?

For those unfamiliar with it, the backstory is that for four hundred years now England has been a part of Britain, aka the United Kingdom, after it was taken over by James VII of Scotland in 1603, and lost its independence entirely in 1707 when the parliaments were also joined.

But should it now go back to being an independent state, or was its 'conquest' fully within the letter of the law of both nations and therefore cannot be altered?

[Tom]

If England were to become its own nation, then the United Kingdom would no longer be a united kingdom, if you see what I'm saying. Besides, England has done well under the United Kingdom, and there is a mutual relationship and reliance between both the UK and England itself. I feel that splitting apart from the UK, especially in these times of economic hardship, would be detrimental to that area of Europe.

[Kestral]

When you say "lost" you make it sound like a bad thing. The UK was established somewhere a bit before or after the War of 1812.
I think it was still King George who was in semi-power then. (You know, Magna Carta and all, and more). Either way, I wouldn't want 4 more countries added to the country list, and more.

These include:
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
England

And several independent provinces lost because you just can't split provinces. Try imagining when a couple goes through a divorce. Their possessions have to go to someone right? Fights and drama ensues, definitely.

[Tom]

Try imagining when a couple goes through a divorce. Their possessions have to go to someone right? Fights and drama ensues, definitely.

That's another thing. With the world in the state of war that it is, does NATO really need another problem to deal with? If England tried to separate from the UK, more parties than just them would be involved. Like I said, I don't see it happeneing.

[Ashk. Ashina Zelaku]

The UK was established somewhere a bit before or after the War of 1812

1603 was the Union of Crowns, 1707 was the Act of Union (which united the parliaments).

I think it was still King George who was in semi-power then

He was German, not English. England hasn't had a native dynasty for almost a thousand years.

(You know, Magna Carta and all, and more)

Magna Carta was in 1215, and serves barons and nobility more than it does kings. In fact, it's actively against the monarchy. And besides, only three clauses are still in force.

Either way, I wouldn't want 4 more countries added to the country list, and more

Good point, although I assume that even if the UK split into the eight possible directions (a'Ghaidhealtachd, Scotland, Orkney, Wales, Cornwall, England, Northern Ireland, and possibly Shetland) it would still have the same common interests - the countries would still be on an island or their own island, mostly, with one exception if you don't include the territories.

[Kestral]

The UK was established somewhere a bit before or after the War of 1812

1603 was the Union of Crowns, 1707 was the Act of Union (which united the parliaments).

I think it was still King George who was in semi-power then

He was German, not English. England hasn't had a native dynasty for almost a thousand years.

(You know, Magna Carta and all, and more)

Magna Cart was in 1215, and serves barons and nobility more than it does kings. In fact, it's actively against the monarchy. And besides, only three clauses are still in force.

1) You're confusing when England and Scotland became Britain.
2) You mean King George III right? The King in the time of the American Revolution?
3) I said this in accordance to my saying of "semi-power" which limited the King's power.

[Ashk. Ashina Zelaku]

1) The Kingdom of Great Britain became one state in 1707, but in the eyes of the first king to rule both nations it was a single kingdom since 1603.
2) Yes, until the early nineteenth century the royal line was Hanoverian, and had been since 1715.
3) Most of the clauses in the Magna Carta were shedded only a few centuries, many of them only a few decades, after it was signed, so it wouldn't have done much to limit the king's power after 1603. And remember that it only applies to England, which no longer had its own monarchy - thus the entire concept of 'limiting the king's power' was irrelevant in practice.

[Kestral]

1) The Kingdom of Great Britain became one state in 1707, but in the eyes of the first king to rule both nations it was a single kingdom since 1603.
2) Yes, until the early nineteenth century the royal line was Hanoverian, and had been since 1715.
3) Most of the clauses in the Magna Carta were shedded only a few centuries, many of them only a few decades, after it was signed, so it wouldn't have done much to limit the king's power after 1603. And remember that it only applies to England, which no longer had its own monarchy - thus the entire concept of 'limiting the king's power' was irrelevant in practice.

1) Great Britain consisted of Scotland and England and that's it. The UK was established with the inclusion of Northern Ireland.
2) King George III was still King, was he not?
3) The real power of Prime Ministers came from the Reform Act of 1832, this eventually made the Monarch's political power null. It also set off the the line of modern Prime Ministers, starting from Lord Grey who pushed for the bill. However the position of Prime Minister had existed before, but not in this new form of power.

[Ashk. Ashina Zelaku]

1) The current name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was formerly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The two are interchangeable. It's been referred to as the United Kingdom in sennachie's ballads from the Highlands since 1603, so its two names have been interchangeable in some areas since it was founded, and became interchangeable in most after that. I don't know about England's name for it from my own experience, but I'm guessing that as they have both the United Kingdom Independence Party and the British National Party as important players in politics, it's interchangeable there, as well.
2) I'm going to ignore the fact that Prince Charlie was the legitimate grandson of a Stewart monarch and say yes
3) The real power of Prime Minsters may have increasing in 1832, but the power of the monarch had not been absolute for hundreds of years. The last monarch to try and claim the divine right to help him politically was Charles I, and his arrogance resulted in the War of the Three Kingdoms.

[Kestral]

Seeing as matter 1 is just us saying different names for the UK (or whatever it may be) and what it is, let's leave that behind.
Matter 2 seems to be a truce.


Now for three;

I've never said that the Monarch of England has had absolute power, but the was used for Tyranny for some monarchs. Like the aforementioned Charles I and King George III. Their power has been slowly deteriorating ever since the Magna Carta, the Reform Act of 1832 is surely to say that they've dwindled to only a figurehead. However, I do not know much of Elizabeth's predecessor's history. (I think it was King George but not sure on the numeral. I think it's V)