The Anglosphere is the only thing that keeps the world from descending into barbarism

I have a theory that people think English food is bad because the good English dishes have been adopted worldwide and that the only ones people still realize are English are the ones that weren't good enough to become a ubiquitous staple of western societies like the sandwich or Sunday roast did.

"and our food is the best in the world." That is a least the most reasonable claim you made (don't forget the lovely weather). Not you can find "English" restaurant in every cities in the world. And no, "Fish and Chips" doesn't count.

Originally Posted by Brenus

"and our food is the best in the world." That is a least the most reasonable claim you made (don't forget the lovely weather). Not you can find "English" restaurant in every cities in the world. And no, "Fish and Chips" doesn't count.

English resteraunts aren't called English resteraunts, they're just called resteraunts; the base standard of resteraunt is english, everyone else has to differentiate themselves against by specifying nationality and/or style to avoid confusion.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=restaurant

Restaurant is a french word and therefore every restaurant is by default a french one.

The word is french but the modernl expectation has become fairly English; when you want an english dish, for example roast beef, chips and gravy, you don't seek out a specialised English establishment you look for a basic restaurant and usually expect it to serve it. There's obviously going to be some variation on locale, but the general expectation in the western world is so.

Indeed. The modern world's lingua franca is English. The British civilisation is the world's cultural oeuvre. The world's raison d'etre is to serve the Anglophones. Let us stand for the national anthem.

Le dieu sauve notre reine...

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The modern world's lingua franca is English.

It is subject to changes. In the 17-18th centuries it was Portuguese. Who knows, perhaps soon it's gonna be Chinese.

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The British civilisation is the world's cultural oeuvre.

Say that again... Did I hear hors d'oeuvre?

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The word is french but the modernl expectation has become fairly English; when you want an english dish, for example roast beef, chips and gravy, you don't seek out a specialised English establishment you look for a basic restaurant and usually expect it to serve it. There's obviously going to be some variation on locale, but the general expectation in the western world is so.

Not chips, french fries!

Not french: freedom fries!

Originally Posted by Brenus

"and our food is the best in the world." That is a least the most reasonable claim you made (don't forget the lovely weather). Not you can find "English" restaurant in every cities in the world. And no, "Fish and Chips" doesn't count.

Fish and Chips count.

For the uninitiated - chips and French Fries aren't actually the same.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Heptarchy kingdoms were no different in this regard. Their borders changed, sometimes some of them were united under a powerful ruler (i.e. Offa) and split after his death. So to rule a kingdom you had to have a more significant argument up your sleeve than just a piece of paper.

You are speaking of the Bretwalda, with "wide wielder", and you are correct but Alfred was something new, rather than allowing other Kings after Alfred we would have only one king of the Anglo-Saxons, and once we had retakedn the Danelaw we would have one "King of the English".

Alfred is the only King in English history termed "The Great" for a reason. He's also the only Pre-Conquest English King other than Edward the Confessor who children are taught about in shcool, or who was valourised in the Post-Conquest literature.

Evidently, it didn't help him much.

I don't know if you know the battle, but it is universally considered a close run thing with two events considered pivotal, the point in the mid afternoon (irrc) where a section of harold's army charged down the hill and were caught out of the shieldwall and cut down by William's knights, and the point in the late afternoon when Harold was cut down by four Norman Knights.

Harold probably should have had archers, it would have made things easier, but I'm not sure it actually would have made a huge impact because archery in this period wasn't all that significant, William had archers and crossbowmen and it still took all day to break the English army, and only after a large section of it was tricked, trapped, and slaughtered.

Yet their culture is the one apart and seemed to be of a higher level than the others'. It will never do to count them out from British identity.

Again, his kingdom didn't include the whole of England. There were others in evidence.

And there is the problem with titles monarchs might have adopted: if a king called himself something, it doesn't mean it was true. For instance, English kings during Hundred years war claimed the title of the king of France and even (from time to time) quartered their coat of arms with fleur de lis, yet in fact it was a wishful thinking.

That's true, but Alfred's reach extended beyond his own borders into the Danelaw which was Christianised after Alfred defeated Guthrum in battle. Alfred may not have achieved political unity but he is our first "English King" so he was crucial in forming us into a nation and his Grandson WAS a King of all England, and nominally overlord of all Britain - but he's still overshadowed by his grandfather.

It was a unified COUNTRY, there's no doubt about it, that's why the Conqueror had to kill only one person to have the crown. But we here speak of a unified IDENTITY of the people. Usually this process takes decades or even centuries, but often there is a shock, an all-national disaster for people to realize their "togetherness" through differentiating themselves from another people. Think of uniting Italy. Something like this is happening in Ukraine nowadays.

Well, what's happening in Ukraine is that bits are being cut off and that's welding the rest together. I remember something like ten years ago IA and I was discussing common English identity in a thread and we couldn't find a single thing in common beyond the Royal Family (even the language isn't really the same, more so than it was but only because of mass transport).

Anyway, it is difficult for us now to claim with certainty that in the year of Alfred's death people of his kingdom considered themselves "English" and not "Saxons".

I think the point is that they considered themselves "Anglo-Saxons" and then "West Saxons" or "East Saxons" or "East Angles".

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The word is french but the modernl expectation has become fairly English; when you want an english dish, for example roast beef, chips and gravy, you don't seek out a specialised English establishment you look for a basic restaurant and usually expect it to serve it. There's obviously going to be some variation on locale, but the general expectation in the western world is so.

You are describing a pub - not a restaurant.

No I'm not. The average western restaraunt has English/british origins, enough to make the idea of an "English restaraunt" largely redundant.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Alfred is the only King in English history termed "The Great" for a reason. He's also the only Pre-Conquest English King other than Edward the Confessor who children are taught about in shcool, or who was valourised in the Post-Conquest literature.

That's true, but Alfred's reach extended beyond his own borders into the Danelaw which was Christianised after Alfred defeated Guthrum in battle. Alfred may not have achieved political unity but he is our first "English King" so he was crucial in forming us into a nation and his Grandson WAS a King of all England, and nominally overlord of all Britain - but he's still overshadowed by his grandfather.

This is called good PR. There is a book by Feuchtwanger called The Ugly Duchess, in which he describes the life of a 14th century Tyrol ruler. Since she was ugly, all her subjects attributed all mishaps that were in evidence to her mismanagement and all good things to her pretty relative (IIRC).

I don't doubt or argue Alfred's role in the history of England, yet history of the past (in any country) is often a subject tailored to suit the purposes of later times. Royal nicknames are often misleading and too flattering to their bearers actual character and\or input into the development of the country and don't cover the whole gamut of a person's traits and actions. Russia had two "the Greats" - Peter I and Catherine II - but their role is far from being exceptionally positive. Louis XIII was "the Just". Do you really think he WAS that?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I remember something like ten years ago IA and I was discussing common English identity in a thread and we couldn't find a single thing in common beyond the Royal Family (even the language isn't really the same, more so than it was but only because of mass transport).

You forget the fish and chips.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think the point is that they considered themselves "Anglo-Saxons" and then "West Saxons" or "East Saxons" or "East Angles".

I don't think we will know this (or the opposite) for sure. A nation's identity is hard to gauge even now to say nothing of the past.