St George`s day

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I was of course referring to Ireland as a kingdom in its own right ruled by its own king.

Which it was. By the beginning of the 12th century, Ireland had become semi-feudalized, and the high kingship had come to be vested in the O'Conors of Connaught. In the late 12th century McMurrough Kavanagh in Wexford challenged the authority of the king, Rory O'Conor. Kavanagh went to England where he met with the English king, and arranged for knights, archers, and men at arms to be sent to Ireland to help him in his rebellion against the king. Henry of England granted Kavanaghs request on the condition that he, Henry, be recognized as Lord of Ireland. Kavanagh agreed, and the Pope issued a bulla to that effect.

... A "takeover" is not the same whether by dint of conquest or a Papal load of Bull.

Setting aside your rather disrespectful comments concerning the papacy, I should point out that England had precious little do do with any sort of "takeover"-- 12 knights, three score of horses, 60 archers, and about 200 men-at-arms, set sail from Bristol in 1189 at the request of a minor king (roughly the equivalent of an English earl) to engage in a free-booting exercise to possibly wrest the Irish crown from the King of Ireland, Rory O'Conor, and place it on the head of McMurrough Kavanagh.

The Kingship of Ireland by an English monarch was disputed and resisted and was something that could not be enforced for centuries and when it was it was always against the wishes of the majority of its people.

Well, this just isn't accurate, or true. It may be 19th century anti-British, pro-Irish inddependence propaganda, but it sure ain't the reality of history.

I know of no English monarch that was awarded the crown of or crowned in Ireland.

The same is equally true of any British monarch with regard to Scotland; not since 1651 has the sovereign been crowned in Scotland, but that fact doesn't mean that ERII isn't the Queen North of the Tweed.

As I pointed out also, the Acts of Union were to do with the Parliaments as Scotland had its own until 1707 and Ireland until 1801.

Precisely why Ireland was included in the national flag.

Wales did have its own parliament at Machynlleth, established by Owain Glyndwr but this was dissolved by force rather than bribery as was the case with the others.

Owain Glyndwr, following a personal dispute with Lord Grey, was in rebellion between 1402 and his death in 1416. During this time he assumed the style of "Prince of Wales", and at various times allied himself (with little success) with Lord Percy, Ireland, Scotland and France. That he did establish the machynlleth is of interest, mostly from the point of view that it was ineffective (as was Glyndwr) in governing Wales.

Wales is a Principality but NOT of the Kingdom of England (which has not existed since 1603 in any case).

Wales is an appanage of the crown, rather like the Dukedom of Normandy, or the Channel Islands. It is, in effect, the personal property of the monarch. Here's the historical time line:

Edward I conquers Wales in 1283, and immediately divides the territory into two halves. About 1/3 of the territory is retained by the king and is elevated to the status of a principality; the remaining 2/3 is chopped up into Shires and parceled out to various "marcher" lords; this status remains until the period 1536-1543 when parliament passes a number of acts which annex the shires of the Marcher Lords to the Principality (thus lessening their power) whilst at the same time giving Wales 27 seats in the Westminster Parliament.

Lichtenstein is also a Principalty, as is Monaco, but they have their own (resident) rulers, nationality and flags. So the "not a kingdom" argument simply does not hold water.

You should hold your water. Lichtenstein is an appanage of the King of Bohemia and is 100% the property of the current representer of that now-defunct kingdom. Monaco is a 19th century invention of French politics-- and owes its status to the political expediency (and on going grace and favour) of succeeding French governments.

Furthermore...(Wales) has a largely self governing status as Scotland does...

The Welsh National Assembly does not have anything near the powers of the Scottish National Talking Shop. This was one of the gripes voiced by Plaid Cyrmu when the WNA was created.

and has the right, like Scotland, to vote itself independent by referendum should a majority vote be gained for that.

So, theoretically, does Quebec, but neither prospect is likely. I think, if you go back and read the Act, you will discover that independence can not be achieved by a unilateral decision in either Wales or Scotland.

Scotland at least cannot claim it is being insulted by being not included in the Union Flag and Scottish Unionists can proudly point to the Saltire flying in the design. It may be that we are moving to a Federal system that stops short of full independence but even a Federal system, such as that of the US makes sure, that all parts of that are given a presence on the flag. If Puerto Rico, for example, ever became the 51st state then an extra star would appear on the US flag without argument. It is not a question of voice so much as a question of what is right.

It is true that if Puerto Rico chose statehood over its commonwealth status, it would be accorded a star on the national flag. That is because it would be coming into the union. In the instance of Wales, like it or not, it has been a part of "greater Britain" since at least 1536, if not since Edward I took it, and sliced it up, and divvied it out to his pals, in 1283.

Look, I'm all in favour of people having cultural pride-- like I said originally, I think it's great that Welsh men and women fly the livery banner of "Bluff King Hal" as their own. But, to accord Wales a special place on the national flag? Sorry Trefor, you just haven't managed to convince me that it's the thing that needs to be done.