Neither does the OP, for that matter... But that's the nature of the messiness of these threads.
As to whether people cared which side of the border they found themselves on, they probably didn't much until they made the transition from subjects into citizens. If your language, religion, and taxes didn't change, it really didn't matter who your prince was (although it did with the Reformation and the later legal doctrine of cuius regio eius religio - whose territory, his religion).
@Doc Tor Your example of the Glorious Revolution is an interesting example of how nationalism gets read backward in time. Not so much in 1688, but later it gets interpreted as part of the English identity as that identity becomes increasingly wed to political institutions by the broader population. Even though it was under the Stuarts, there's an incipient Whiggishness about it and Parliament's enhanced role.
@Crœsos I don't see an inevitability in the longish quotation you cited. Once the 13 colonies became the 13 states, there desire to extend their boundaries to the Pacific (wherever that may have been) definitely impelled westward movement. Again, not inevitable, but to a degree population pressure also made expansion a likely development.
Certainly, the first stirrings of nationalism were in the 17th century. But if you believe English nationalism was such a potent force that far back, then you're going to to struggle to explain the Glorious Revolution (1688), and the popularity of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha that persisted until 1917.
The Dutch invasion is complicated by Mary being a Stuart, of course, and the Hanoverians were far from popular, otherwise there wouldn't have been quite so many risings and rebellions against them, with the Scottish ones in particular having some nationalistic flavour (for all that Charles Edward Stuart believed in his divine right to rule his supporters were a mixed bag with grievance over the Act of Union being a major motivator). But even if you go back to the rhetoric of the the Chartists, the Levellers or the Diggers a lot of it is couched in nationalist terms.
The Dutch invasion is complicated by Mary being a Stuart, of course, and the Hanoverians were far from popular, otherwise there wouldn't have been quite so many risings and rebellions against them, with the Scottish ones in particular having some nationalistic flavour (for all that Charles Edward Stuart believed in his divine right to rule his supporters were a mixed bag with grievance over the Act of Union being a major motivator). But even if you go back to the rhetoric of the the Chartists, the Levellers or the Diggers a lot of it is couched in nationalist terms.
I can think of six:
- 1715 (Scottish Highlanders, opposed by Scottish Lowlanders)
- 1745 (ditto)
- 1798 - 1804 (Ireland)
- 1848 (Ireland)
- 1867 (Ireland again)
- 1916 (you can guess).
I assume there are some others that I haven't thought of. Otherwise that's not a bad record for a dynasty that lasted from 1714 to 1917 (including the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha bit). I wouldn't have described Chartism as a rising, it was more of a political movement.
I've excluded risings in the Empire (and could arguably exclude the Irish risings on the same basis) as foreign occupying powers are invariably unpopular.
On 1688 and all that, I can see the parochialism angle. For arcane reasons of my own, I've recently read Nathan Rogers's 'Memoirs of Monmouthshire' of 1708 which is a highly Whiggish account of the history of that county deployed as an appeal to local gentry to oppose the enclosure of lucrative tracts of Wentwood by the Beaufort family- formerly the Herberts, Marquesses of Worcester and Papist grandee supporters of Charles I during the Civil War.
I'd agree that nationalism became more of a thing in the 17th century but I'd argue that we can see it beginning to develop in the 16th - and perhaps even during the 15th to some extent.
Of course, all these things overlap. Owain Glyndwr's local spat with his neighbours around 1400 developed into a 'nationalist' Welsh rebellion - but was also more complicated than that - anti-Bolingbroke, anti-Canterbury ...
English nationalism is certainly a thing by the time of Elizabeth 1.
Comments
Neither does the OP, for that matter... But that's the nature of the messiness of these threads.
As to whether people cared which side of the border they found themselves on, they probably didn't much until they made the transition from subjects into citizens. If your language, religion, and taxes didn't change, it really didn't matter who your prince was (although it did with the Reformation and the later legal doctrine of cuius regio eius religio - whose territory, his religion).
@Doc Tor Your example of the Glorious Revolution is an interesting example of how nationalism gets read backward in time. Not so much in 1688, but later it gets interpreted as part of the English identity as that identity becomes increasingly wed to political institutions by the broader population. Even though it was under the Stuarts, there's an incipient Whiggishness about it and Parliament's enhanced role.
@Crœsos I don't see an inevitability in the longish quotation you cited. Once the 13 colonies became the 13 states, there desire to extend their boundaries to the Pacific (wherever that may have been) definitely impelled westward movement. Again, not inevitable, but to a degree population pressure also made expansion a likely development.
The Dutch invasion is complicated by Mary being a Stuart, of course, and the Hanoverians were far from popular, otherwise there wouldn't have been quite so many risings and rebellions against them, with the Scottish ones in particular having some nationalistic flavour (for all that Charles Edward Stuart believed in his divine right to rule his supporters were a mixed bag with grievance over the Act of Union being a major motivator). But even if you go back to the rhetoric of the the Chartists, the Levellers or the Diggers a lot of it is couched in nationalist terms.
I would dispute that. I'd say it was couched in parochial terms, which is psychogeographically distinct from nationalism.
I can think of six:
- 1715 (Scottish Highlanders, opposed by Scottish Lowlanders)
- 1745 (ditto)
- 1798 - 1804 (Ireland)
- 1848 (Ireland)
- 1867 (Ireland again)
- 1916 (you can guess).
I assume there are some others that I haven't thought of. Otherwise that's not a bad record for a dynasty that lasted from 1714 to 1917 (including the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha bit). I wouldn't have described Chartism as a rising, it was more of a political movement.
I've excluded risings in the Empire (and could arguably exclude the Irish risings on the same basis) as foreign occupying powers are invariably unpopular.
What other risings were there in Scotland?
One in 1719, with others planned and aborted.
I didn't pitch them as Scottish nationalism, only noted it as one of the factors involved.
I'd agree that nationalism became more of a thing in the 17th century but I'd argue that we can see it beginning to develop in the 16th - and perhaps even during the 15th to some extent.
Of course, all these things overlap. Owain Glyndwr's local spat with his neighbours around 1400 developed into a 'nationalist' Welsh rebellion - but was also more complicated than that - anti-Bolingbroke, anti-Canterbury ...
English nationalism is certainly a thing by the time of Elizabeth 1.