I really do not know how to cover this but I will make an attempt.

Bare with me here I prithee.......

It is all about how people in the North would likely have thought of themselves, nationalistically, during the 15th century.

Without preaching to the Choir, the island that was Britain and populated by Britons fell upon hard times after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the area. The south was sustained for nearly four centuries by trade with that empire and suffered worse when the market collapsed.

The north had always been left to more or less administer itself and act as a buffer zone against the Picts, the Scots and the Irish. Because of this the region was in a better state to defend itself. After 100 years the Thirteen Kingdoms of The North were a part of history. The Angles were snapping at their heels though and the Scots, having moved in number from Ireland to the western isles above Glasgow, were another northern force to be wary of.

As in any time of war and national threat the Brits stuck together. Well, as much as any Celts ever can when there are other Celts to fight and rob! This was the region known to all history as Y Gogledd - The North. An area of apparently high sofistication. A Golden age of Britain as many historians claim.

This was no island realm any more though and kings within the British zone worked and traded with kings of the Scots and kings of the Germanic invaders too. Trade is trade. But nibbled at for centuries the region slowly shrunk until, in the 11th century, the last kingdom, Strath Alcut around the south of Dunbarton (its capital - meaning fortress of the Britons) had no male heir and the princess married into the Scots. The 'English' (a new term for the Angles) lords were in control or, as with the Romans, used British allies to rule the North.

1066 and the Normans arrived. The lands of Britain were, in great part but not completely, given over to Norman and Breton lords and their lieutenants. These men were a pretty smart bunch and records show they lost no time in setting up their own personal petty kingdoms. But never used that term of course. Never-the-less they were total masters in their own lands.

History throughout this new 'England' shows this only too well time and time again. The King of England was only as powerful as his lords were supportive. Enough kings found that out to their displeasure or actual demise. Fair enough. But why 'England'? The Angles had been defeated, the Norse in the north-east subdued. Why still 'England'? The lords maybe didn't want to rock the boat too much? After all they survived upon the support of their people as much as the king survived on theirs. We'll never likely know but something made them keep the name and it certainly wasn't because they couldn't spell Greater Normandy.

But what of these new lands? These new earldoms or whatever they may be called. In the north the people did not suddenly become English, nor Norman. Cumbria was still Cumbria, Northumbria was still Northumbria etc. 'England' hadn't touched here much in any reality and even our old pal King Athelstan in the 920's had set himself up as King of England, built a 'palace' at Sherburn-in-Elmet, won a small scrap, declared himself lord of all the north - and then scooted off before anyone could register a disagreement. .

It was all now 'technically' England. The Normans accepted it as such - anything for free. But was it? That is my point On another forum I posed this question. Jesus did I get some flack from their Anglophiles! Even to the extent of claiming I had said England never existed - or something to that effect. I had lost interest in persuing history with closed minds by that time. Quite funny if I also didin't take history seriously.

The North, Y Gogledd, had gone forever. But what of its people? Did they just easily change to being something else? The facts, such as we know them, certainly don't seem to say so. Quite the reverse. Not only the original people but the new Norman lords found that this idea of a new North had some possibilities. Not as before, by any means, but a region that could ally itself against the English king if such an action were needed might be a cool idea. The Norman lords went 'native'. This was even more obvious in Wales and so the North was not a freak isolated case. The list of Northern rebellions of one sort or another that cover the next six centuries is long enough to fill a bokk and has actually filled many.

This 'feeling' of Northerness still exists in many even today - despite the number of southerners who have moved here lately and proved beyond doubt that they don't eat children. What of back then? History lists event after event where the people of the old British area have gone against an English king.

The North covered up to present-day Glasgow and Edinbrough and then a yard or two. Just over a century after Dunbarton married Scotland the Scots are led by Kings who were originally from Northern families. Enter an Australian replica of Erol Flynn with Iron Age woad on his face and crawling from his mud hut to defeat the English king Edward can't defy history. Wee Wallace was a Scot and a half. Tartan to the teeth.

Nope. Wallace was a sophisticated knight born in a Welsh family (the name itself means 'Welsh') that lived in an old Northern town, Paisley is close enough, which had fought against Scotland and England for 600 years before being given away in marriage just four or so generations before Billy was born. No wonder he wanted the English beaten, and if he could take Scotland into the bargain then all the better. But he didn't want it for himself. He wanted it for the true King of Scotland, Robert The Bruce. AKA Robert le Brus. A Northern based knight, great grandson of the Earl of Chester and grandson of the Earl of Huntingdon. Family connection spread through what was present-day Yorkshire.

Are we perhaps missing something here? The last British kingdom had gone to Scotland but the kings of Scotland and its fighting heroes were made up of Northern gentry! Bloody hell, 'I'll have the Scots shouting 'Infamy' now! It gets even deeper though. Just to the south of Towton is the village of Barkston. Lord de Barkeston actually supported The Bruce with gold and cattle. His son fought alongside The Bruce against English King Edward. It is a situation echoed across the old north. For his treason he lost half his land to the Lord of nearby Saxton, who also supported The Bruce but Edward seemingly didn't know. But not executed? Looks like Edward had so little support in the north he couldn't risk it and hadn't enough people he could trust to fill all the vacancies if he started chopping up traitors.

That doesn't sound like a North that in any way considered themselves 'English'. More like they were looking for another flag to fly and any non-English flag would do. Makes me wonder what would have happened if Wallace or The Bruce had taken and held York. Would The North have been reunited again under Northern lords flying a Scots banner? Who knows.

In Richard III time he was Lord of the North. Had lots of support among the locals. When his brother died and he became King of England much of the northern support melted. Their next chance of independance had gone?

When the English beat the Scots at Culloden history shows that the redcoats were mainly lowland 'Scots'. So in one Anglo-Scottish war the 'English' helped beat the English and in another the 'Scots' helped beat the Scots. Isn't anyone who doesn't have a modern day nationalistic agenda asking themselves why the people of age old Y Gogledd are, even centuries later, refusing to accept that they are Scottish or English, despite what modern maps say?

It isn't so now of course, but through those turbulent years what did 'England' mean to anyone in the north? Except wars and taxes?