Anax,

Sorry if this is getting a bit personal - but I did say it was a personal thing. I don't have an infallible theory of personality; just a view about Englishness, which is that many English people (in my sense) are highly ambivalent about their Englishness and prefer to re-articulate it as Britishness (supposedly more inclusive, universal, progressive): English and British as two sides of the same 'split personality', if you like - the 'bad' / private / suppressed versus the 'good' / public / openly expressed respectively.

The fact that you are unwilling to declare what your 'national identity' is - if you accept that such a term applies to you in any form - doesn't 'prove' my theory but it certainly doesn't help to disprove it. You could have just said you reject the whole notion of an 'emotional' attachment to / identification with a country. I would then have been at liberty to think this was just a typical case of English self-denial (as you say). But you don't do this, and your answer is still evasive - which suggests to me that you feel there's something in what I say that applies to your own situation.

I suppose the fact that we can even be having this discussion indicates the extent to which Englishness is still very much a private, personal matter. And I apologise if I've pushed the barriers between the public and personal too much in our debate, which I've enjoyed in a 'jousting' sense.

David, aka Britology Watch

This is like psychoanalysis; "You're in denial", "No I'm not!", "See!". Your infallible theory of personality spits out the same answer regardless of what a person says, buoyed up by your ad hoc hypotheses. It's more dogma than research.

I don't have a script for going to other countries. Whatever the situation calls for, I suppose. Do you haughtily correct everyone you meet?

@ Anax,

Well, in Cameron's words relayed to me by his assistant, he does actually say he's English, with respect to place of birth. Also, in the same article, it says, "Cameron says he calls himself 'very much British' when he is abroad". Why the 'very much British'? That sounds like the phrase of someone who's trying hard to persuade everyone about his impeccable unionist credentials, as indeed he is doing throughout the article. The passage Anax quotes in fact demonstrates what I said about Britishness all along: that it's a public, political identity, rather than an intimate personal one. Indeed, I would say that if Cameron's Britishness has this personal character, it is precisely because of the Scottish and Welsh streams within it - which Cameron himself emphasises - not because there is any overriding, integral British national identity that takes precedence over individual British national identities (English, Scottish, Welsh), at least not in the emotional and personal sense rather than the political.

I note that Anax, unlike David Cameron, has still declined to answer the question of what he would call himself when abroad. Is this because he's embarrassed to admit that he calls himself English (or Scottish / Welsh, for all I know), or that he calls himself British and that, in accordance with his argument in earlier comments, this is a 'national identity' devoid of personal emotional significance?

There's no reason to interpret Cameron's statements as anything other than what they are. He's a politician, but his statements could have come from any person on the street.

"I don't care whether pandering to English Nationalism is a vote
winner. The very fact that in my two years as leader I haven't ripped
open the Barnett Formula and wandered round England waving a banner
shows you that I am a very convinced Unionist and I'm not going to play
those games."

A baseline of Englishness indeed. Britologywatch's complex, unfalsifiable psychological system fails to convince.

Clearly I was wrong about the football, it is pretty likely Cameron played some at Eton.

I think most people have some blue blood in them, or aristocratic. It was extremely common in the Middle Ages for the Lord of the Manor to get to deflower the women of the village, especially just after their marriage and before the husband was allowed to. A lot of the aristocracy had mistresses from the other classes, and the aristocracy frequently branched off the Royal line.

Conversely, I think that a lot of people have peasant ancestry as well - including the aristocracy. Much of it on the "wrong side of the bed." I think we know who our mothers and grandmothers were, but proving the male line is a little bit harder. 

Although DC is a direct descendant of Willian IV, albeit through the 'illegitimate' line! I suppose that would make him German in some people's eyes!

I think part of the problem is that Cameron is Anglo-Scottish, i.e. he is most definitely an Englishman, but his parent(s) come from my part of the world - north east Scotland, Huntly to be precise (I don't know any of his relatives). English people tend to assume that Scottish ancestry makes them Scottish, although people in Scotland itself tend to think in a combination of this, and their upbringing/culture/home area etc. Or of course, naturalisation...

"Since he's upper class, he probably has little interest in football"

Ah, now there you're making a completely wrong assumption. His alma mater Eton, is a football school, rather than a rugby one, and I'm not talking about the Eton Wall Game.

Soccer (as opposed to all the other games called football) was codified in the English public schools. I appreciate it has done a great job of revising its history, but these are the facts. What was called "football" prior to the 1850s was more similar to rugby. Soccer was codified at Uppingham School by JC Thring, prior to that, most folk carried the ball. (Web Ellis never started that). Charterhouse is a founder member of the FA, and the FA Cup was also founded by a solicitor, CW Alcock, a Harrovian who was inspired by the inter-house competition at his old school. The earliest teams in the leagues included the old boys of English public schools, and Oxbridge. Sheffield was also founded by such people.

Even before Uppingham came along, and developed modern football, the Cambridge Rules were written at Trinity College, Cambridge, at a meeting attended by representatives from Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester and Shrewsbury schools.

I'm a bit sceptical of its claim to be the "people's game" when it is owned by billionaires and played by millionaires, and its merchandise flogged to the physically unfit. It's always been the domain of the rich. It just happens to be one of many games also played by the working class - albeit the one that smothers all others in media coverage.

By the way, I would claim Cameron is upper middle class, rather than upper class, since he is not a member of the aristocracy. Maybe he wishes to be, but that's not how I see it.

Anax,

Ultimately, I can't prove Cameron is English in the emotional sense; but his equivocal words I quoted in the original post seem to suggest it, as do the similarly equivocal words in the Telegraph article I was thinking of, which imply a 'baseline' of English identity that he dresses up as 'British' by reference to his 'other' British (Welsh and Scottish) antecedents. 

In any case, on purely cultural and personal-history grounds, it would also be fair to say DC is English: born and brought up in a very English way (Eton School, Oxford Uni, etc.). Lived in England all his life. Even, I'm tempted to say, rather typically English-Conservative view of the Union. Plummy English accent and upper-class demeanour. If you knew nothing about his background, 99% of British people would say he was English without a second thought.

So if nationality means nothing to you, Anax, how do you describe your nationality when you're travelling abroad and ordinary people you meet (as opposed to customs officers) ask you where you're from? Or is that a meaningless question, too?

You're basing Cameron's Englishness on his support for England in sporting events. Since he's upper class, he probably has little interest in football, unless he's decided to cultivate one for political reasons. We don't even know what importance he places on sport; possibly it's an entertaining diversion, rather than the existential focus which it is for some nationalists.

He has stated that the most important thing in his life is his family. Is he lying, or is the family not an emotional thing? Or perhaps you'll say that this proves his Englishness, creating an unfalsifiable position.

I cannot answer your question, it means nothing to me. No doubt there are devout Star Trek fans who cannot concieve of people who have no opinion of 'which captain was best'.

Yes, but whether we regard emotional identity as primary or not is not the most important point I was making. We can debate about what is 'primary' until the cows come home. My point was that <i>at</i> that level, DC's identity is English - whether he regards that level as primary or not. What's yours, Anax? (I note that you didn't take up my challenge to answer that particular question.)

 David, aka Britology Watch

You say my argument is specious, but then state that it's a personal thing. It is a personal thing. People have different views on the primacy of the emotions, of the relative importance of emotional attachments and on what moral and political truths derive from this.

You diagnose David Cameron as primarily English, based on your own doctrines of what it means to be human. For all we know, Cameron holds the opposite viewpoint, regarding emotional attachments as of lesser importance compared to rationality and individual freedom. That would be his right.

I think your argument is a bit specious, Anax. Of course, there are multiple identities, including national ones. However, my argument is based on a notion of psychological / emotional truth. Anyone can say, for instance, that they're a 'citizen of the world' or 'European first and foremost', or indeed 'British'. But I just don't think it's true, psychologically, that 'native' British people (not an ethnic term; meaning people born and brought up here) think of their national identity as primarily British in this emotional sense; or, if they do, this identification generally marks them out as English (to 'prove' such an assertion, you'd have to delve into what they associate to Britain; and my expectation is that it would be things you could just as easily describe as English – or which would reflect an England-centric view of Britain – rather than relating to all of the nations or geography of Britain).

The psychological level I'm referring to is that of 'affect' (or in Lacanian terms, the 'Real') as mediated through imaginary identifications: 'I'm "English" because I identify emotionally and in fantasy with England / other English people'. This has a claim, in psychological-developmental terms to be a more 'primary' level of identification than'symbolic' identification with more abstract, socially mediated concepts such as citizenship or universal values. This is the level at which Britishness mainly works; whereas Englishness addresses the more 'basic' level. What you regard as 'primary' or 'more real' is up to you; but I'm just making a point about emotional identity - if that doesn't reflect your emotional truth, then fair enough.

By definition, this is a very personal thing: it's about what you think of - what images, feelings and words come to mind - when you think of 'my country'. It's interesting that no one with whom I've ever disputed about this publicly has ever volunteered to say what their national identity actually is in my sense. Clearly, I would say mine is English, even though I could equivocate happily a la David Cameron (having Welsh and Irish grandparentage). And this is because, for me, home is England; and Britain is just what's on my passport.

David, aka Britology Watch

It's normal for human beings to have multiple identities, without there being any over-arching primary identity. I have a first name and a surname; it would be preposterous to state one or other was the 'primary' name. You could make arguments either way, but it would really be an argument over other things, like the importance of the individual versus the family. What you are arguing is for the primacy of the emotions over individual autonomy and rationality. However, there's no reason to believe this; one could just as easily insist on the primacy of rationality over the emotions (like the Stoics) or have a balanced view (like Aristotle).