Talk:List of English people

I believe that to be included on a list as this there should be a certain criteria 1]the person should be born in said country 2] or]a person should have grown up in said country,ie been educated by it 3] or]a person should have at least one parent of said country and identifies THEMSELVES with that country.....otherwise it just becomes a pointless poaching exercise that gets reduced to petty nationalism..I have removed Hugh Dowding,David Stirling has gone i think that there are AT LEAST three others ....1]ernst Shackleton 2]the Duke of Wellington 3]Alan Brook, Field Marshall...are these English i will not remove any but would like others to question these.Bullseye30 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullseye30 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

i have removed all three names Brook,shackleton and the DOW,they are all clearly Irishmen and its seems churlish to include them,i have however added four more to the listBullseye30 (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware this article included fictional characters, is this so? - bbcmicro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbcmicro (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland, do we keep him in? -Cadr

Well, he himself supposedly said that being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse. I imagine he considered himself to be an Englishman. I think that Anglo-Irish types who made their career in England can be called English. john 06:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree he should be in the list, but we'd need to change the definition at the top of the page. Does anybody have any suggestions? -Cadr

Something along the lines of 'This is a partial list of English people, alphabetically within categories. Whilst the majority listed below were born in England, those born overseas who are considered English are also represented i.e. Duke of Wellington.' Let me know what you think... - Luke

I don't believe Wellington 'considered himself to be an Englishman'. Wikipedia rightly calls him an 'Anglo-Irish British Army soldier. He was Irish and British, but not English. Xn4 00:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

A rather paltry list of military men and women. Some obvious omissions, just from late 19th Century and 20th (I know these don't accord with Wikipedia naming conventions):

Field Marshal Lord Roberts; FM Sir Garnet Wolsley; FM Viscount Alanbrooke; FM Sir Douglas Haig; FM Sir William Slim; FM Sir Claude Auchinleck; ACM Sir Hugh Dowding; ACM Lord Portal; FM Earl Wavell; Admiral Lord Jellicoe; Admiral Lord Beatty; Admiral Lord Cunningham;

[Philip Hurst 5/12/03]

Dowding was born in Scotland. Were his parents English or did he identify with England over Scotland? If not, then I suggest that he should be removed from the list. 88.105.142.121 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC) IMHO Dowding needs to come of he wasn't English as far as i know,so i shall remove him today,also the Duke of Wellington should be removed as there isn't anything to say he WAS english as opposed to irish/british,i'll give it a few weeks for others to coment,and i shall not remove it.Bullseye30 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I have added Elizabeth Taylor and Leslie Howard to the Actors/Actresses page. They both had non-British mothers and fathers but were born British. Perhaps they should only be on the British people page but I think it's appropriate to put them on the English people page. WikiUser 19:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I've added Simon de Montfort. Of the categories in the contents list Other Notables seems the best place to list him. "English statesman and soldier" may not be the best way to describe him but it'll do for now. I think he is sometimes also called the father of Parliament.WikiUser 19:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Martin Bernal
• Henry Neville
• Martina Cole

---210.128.247.147 09:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

• why isn't J.R.R. Tolkien in the list of famous english writers. isn't he english?

Why are The Beatles listed as the "Greatest band of all time"?

William Tyndale whose translation of the Bible formed the basis for the King James Version and had a huge impact on literature and the English Language and theology (his own work the Obedience of a Christan Man is still considered a classic).

Notice that the Venereable Bede is also missing

See also the discussion headed "English or not Monarchs" later on this page.

Why are several monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom listed as English, this is clearly wrong, many are in fact ethnically German and many of those that are not were certainly not English, nor ever monarchs of any such kingdom. This is POV and just plain wrong.Alun 07:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This whole thing has problems - how many of these people are proved / verified to be English and how many were just born there? Or does being born in England make you English now? Bretonbanquet 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree, we don't know how many of these people would have considered themselves English. Alfred the Great was King of Wessex and later of the Anglo-Saxons, his idea of English and our modern idea are, if not mutually exclusive, then certainly very different. Some of these people were/are certainly English, but it is very strange to claim that any monarchs after James I and VI are English, as these were all either monarchs of England/Scotland (and Ireland) or of Great Britain or of the UK, and to attribute a single national identity (English) to any one would be a distortion of history and the constituton. Alun 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article is tagged as disputed, the discussion is on which monarchs should be in the article. Is there a proposal for what should be done? Or even a statement of what the dispute is? It's no use saying "some" were not English - that's weasel words - we need a proposal of which ones are proposed to be removed. If no one has an actual proposal then there really is no dispute and the tag should be removed, it can't stay there forever. SpinningSpark 01:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Remove the tag!!! I would personally take the point of view when listing English Monarchs the ethnic origin is almost irrelevant as the only salient point is they were Kings and Queens of England. The fact that many are also Kings of Scotland and Wales permits their name to appear on other lists also. When England was split into several Kingdoms each king can be deemed English even though the term English had not existed at the time. They were the roots that fed the tree and can not be separated. Should one use William of Normandy of as an Example: he is a French Duke of indeterminate Viking origin and he became King of England. One could argue he was King of England but not an English King. Taking a pedantic stand on a Kings ethnic origin can marginalise their place in History and add confusion and ambiguity where confusion and ambiguity is not required. If one looks closely into the blood mix of all the Crown heads of Europe few if any were of pure ethnic origin. 21st February 2011 PROWLER2000

I agree with PROWLER2000 (his/her comment posted on 21st February 2011). By the way, see also the discussion below headed "English or not Monarchs". Diakonias (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 13 Mar 2014Reply

Shouldn't Clive Owen be added?

There are people missing from the list. Stutley 17:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

there wil always be people missing and if you know of someone that should be on the list but isn't add them.Andand21 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is thsipart really neccesary? Scotland and Wales don't have murderers and I don't think it reflects too well 172.216.101.10 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

They are Scottish and Welsh murderers I suspect nobody has added them to the lists yet. MilborneOne 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

they might not want to add themAndand21 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the section The following were born English, but changed nationality later in their life should it be made clear that anybody born after 1707 would have British not English nationality. The only way you could be English after 1707 would be to be born in England. MilborneOne 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Britain is a multinational state not a nation, as Nationality implies that one is a member of a nation it is incorrect to apply the term British as refering to nationality (in the same way one can be European but ones nationality is not European) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.174.174 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you probably did not understand that England is not a sovereign nation (since 1707) and the country is called the United Kingdom and the occupants nationality is normally refered to as British. The point being made is therefore you cant become English after 1707 as it is not a nationality, but somebody who was born in England would still be English a bit like somebody from Paris is a Parisian. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anybody explain how a list of people has musical bands listed in it ? MilborneOne 23:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should we move Stan Laurel to actors and actresses because i think he deserves more than being in 'Other notables' as he was one of the team that changed the course of comedic history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey123321 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have moved him to actors and actresses as you rightly say that is his notability. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It has been suggested by others that the article be split. I have been considering attempting to start pages that put contributors into meaningful historical context. Every topic has its canon in which every contributor builds on what went before. I would particularly like to see this made sense of for Evolution (canon), Chemistry (canon), and similar, ideally in a graphic form that shows lifespans and how they overlap on a timeline.

I see that there are many 'timeline' pages, see list of timelines. For example there is timeline of Muslim scientists and engineers, but there are few by country, so a new form of timeline with more detail on, for example timeline of British scientists is worth considering. --Memestream (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

you should spilt the articale but you could have them so they have like a home page that they all lead off ofAndand21 (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd much rather we split this list by geographic locale (county or region), rather than by arbitary categories about occupation or reason for fame. Indeed, we already have some pages by county, and several by city (see Category:Lists of English people by location). --Jza84 |  Talk  17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would this not be easier with Categories? We already have Category:English film actors - which comprises all of the first section anyway!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

We could do with some sources on this article. --John (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

How could robert pattison not be on there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklesaida (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 February 2009

He is there, in fact, he was there twice. SpinningSpark 02:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please... don't make me laugh! It's sweet that England's trying to claim him... but according to IMDB he's about as English as pizza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.255.102 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you actually read his bio on IMDB? He self-identifies as English in it repeatedly - "Being English, I tend to enjoy going down to the pub far more than going to the gym" for instance. SpinningSpark 02:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

How come all of the members of Muse are listed here? Muse is not that significant when it comes to British music. It was also bizarre that Sumner was listed but not Curtis, so I fixed that. Maybe Mercury can be considered British? I'm thinking that no band should get more than a single mention, without a substantial, and influential body of solo work (ie, The Beatles). -- TorontonianOnlines (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is a list of notable English (not British) people and the criteria for inclusion is the same as for creating an article about them. In other words, if an English person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, then they are notable enough to go here. Rettens2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC).Reply

Yes, but not everyone who has a page has an entry here. Just look at New Order for a start. Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook, Stephen Morris all have separate pages, but not entries here. Same with numerous other bands. Besides if each person was added here, this list would be completely unmanageable, and would cease to be useful.

TorontonianOnlines (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm supportive of anyone with a wp page meeting the current indicated criteria of the page. But as our notability criteria for bands suggests, an individual who does not have a wp article and has only been a member of one notable band is not automatically considered notable (though they may be, as demonstrated by refs).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

No reason why if an individual is notable enough to have an article they cant be listed here. If they are not on this list it is probably because nobody has bothered yet rather than any selection criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Due to the allegations of Indecent Sexual Assault on a minor amongst others, I have removed Jimmy Saville from the list as at this time I consider it inappropriate ^[1]

I have restored it again, allegations do not stop Savile being English. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have removed it again on behalf of the OP as as a british person I feel unhappy with J.S being associated with the british — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.252 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have the right to be unhappy but it doesnt stop Saville being English and removing him from the list can be considered vandalism. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

and why is David Stirling on this list?he has as far as i know zero English blood,England has more than it's fare share of Military figures without poaching other nation's surely!11/10/13 Bulleye35

Thanks for that he has been removed from the list. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

See also the discussion headed "English monarchs" earlier on this page.

User:Diakonias has added a number of monarchs to the list of English people who are clearly not born English, James I was born in Scotland for example. Diakonias did give me an explanation on my talk page that they consider being King of England makes you English. After the 1707 Act of Union the position of King of England didnt actually exist so I would still consider for example George I being born in German to a German family and become King of Great Britain doesnt make you English. Also note since 1707 you cant "become" English you have to be born English, and this is true today for people coming into the UK you can become British but not English. So should foreign-born monarchs of both England and Great Britain/United Kingdom be in a list of English people? MilborneOne (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Readers. I am User:Diakonias. Yes, I do indeed consider that being king (or queen) of England (or of Great Britain, of which England is part, or of the United Kingdom, of which England is part) makes you English. The monarch is not only an English person; he/she is the first (primary) or leading English person. As User:MilborneOne thinks otherwise, I am pleased he (or she) has raised the question "Should foreign-born monarchs of both England and Great Britain/United Kingdom be in a list of English people". I shall be interested to see what other Users think. By the way, where a particular monarch was born outside England, I am of course perfectly content for his/her name to be annotated to indicate where he/she was born, (and I have explained this to User:MilborneOne). In the "monarchs" section of a "List of English people", to deliberately leave gaps/omissions, because some names who are chronoligically in the middle of those listed are omitted because they were born outside England, seems to me to be a very strange and un-satisfactory thing to do. Far better (I would suggest) to list them all (as many as are known), and to suitably annotate those known or believed to have been born outside England. Far better, and much more helpful to readers. I rest my case. Diakonias (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC).Reply

I have just noticed that in 2006 through to 2011 there was a discussion along similar lines. Refer to the sub-header "English monarchs" above. That discussion asks for a proposal to resolve the matter. My proposal is simple and clear for readers: List them all, but annotate those born outside England. Then, everyone can see the situation, and no-one will be left wondering why some are omitted. Diakonias (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC).Reply

Just a question to Diakonias, I presume by your logic that being Monarch the like of George I should also appear in the List of Scots, Welsh and Irish people. It would also mean listing all the monarchs into the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish lists depending on when they were King or Queen. To me listing a German or even an English-born King as Irish (or as Welsh or a Scot) is not logical. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello User:MilborneOne. I'm beginning to regret that I ever worked on this wikipage at all. All I originally intended to do was to add the tragic case of Lady Jane Grey (together with a note that in her case the claim to the Crown is/was disputed). But, then I noticed what appeared to me to be omissions from the list. If people take the view you take, that's fine. So be it. Let's wait and see, shall we. But, to answer your question: as for me, my logic is indeed that being monarch the like of George I should also appear in the Lists of Scots, Welsh and Irish people, (if anyone chooses to write them in). And, if there is some faraway island territory that Queen Elizabeth II is actually "Queen" (monarch) of (as distinct from her role as "Head" of the Commonwealth), she should be listed as a person of that island territory if any editor cares to so list her. Similarly, an editor could list Victoria (in her role as empress) as an Indian person. Moving now to a wider question than the question about monarchs, there must be a number of people where one might reasonably argue either for or against their Englishness. So, here's another line of reasoning: It is a fact that there does not exist a really crystal clear water-tight generally accepted definition of who is and is not an English person; some cases will be clear-cut, but in other cases there will be arguments both ways. So, if a wiki-editor chooses to list a particular person as an English person, then provided that calling the person an English person is person might within the envelope of opinions that a reasonable person might reasonably hold, I don't think that wiki should start laying down rules about it. In other words, if the matter is questionable (open to question), allow a wide amount of liberty of judgment, but at the same time encourage insertion of brief explanatory notes in those cases that may be in some way questionable. Any other approach would, I predict, lead potentially to long arguments about particular cases. If wiki provides its readers with the information upon which to form their own views and judgments< I think it has done its job. I hope my thoughts may be in some way helpful. Signing off now. Diakonias (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC).Reply

Englishness refers to someone specifically identified with England, as opposed to any of the other components of Great Britain. Being monarch of Great Britain, in my view, definitely makes you British rather than English ...though George I has a tenuous claim even to this, not being born in England or speaking English! I would add that of sources described someone as English, that should be adequate to support someone being added to the list. We go on what reliable sources say, don't we? Sionk (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the comment posted by PROWLER2000 in Feb 2011, above, under the header "English monarchs".Diakonias (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 13 Mar 2014Reply

People born in London unless they are ethnically English e.g. Cockneys should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.228.90 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Last time I looked London was in England so you would be English if you were born in England. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of English people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630191542/http://www.newstime.co.za/rs_articles.asp?catid=3&recid=1211&pcurr=1 to http://www.newstime.co.za/rs_articles.asp?catid=3&recid=1211&pcurr=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply