Why is the population of England so big

Von Ranke said:

I take it you agree with Phil Bennett's pep talk to the Welsh Rugby Union team before they played England in 1977 :

"Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our houses and they only live in them for a fortnight every twelve months. What have they given us ? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, ....., controlled and punished by the English-and that's who you are playing this afternoon. "

You are not obliged to reply in any way that can incriminate you Iolo

Click to expand...

Anyone who says that sort of thing fancies sheep. That is obvious to all colonial masters! Heil Thatcher! (she, at least, doesn't have a Scottish name!). I never blame 'the English' though - only the people who rule them - and us.

They fancy sheep in Yorkshire. Only they call them "lasses" ("Hurry up, tha' doesn't want to gerroff with n'ugly 'un").

(I'm a Lancastrian, without even a trace element of "Hooray Henry").

Yes, if the English were taught their history properly, they'd realise that their biggest enemy wasn't the Scots, Welsh, Irish or French, but their own ruling classes. Our Celtic cousins are perhaps fortunate that they can blame their woes on the English ruling classes.

So, why did England get so big a population? Well, it reached its medieval peak in the 11th century. Probably around 6 million. By the time of the Black Death, that population had reduced quite considerably because of a long series of bad harvests, war and, finally, Black Death.

Following the Black Death, the population took a long time to recover. A shortage of manpower led many landowners to take up farming animals exclusively (something that was relatively rare in medieval England). Marginal and upland areas were de-populated as people moved to more fertile/manageable areas. It may sound strange, but for the survivors of the plague, de-population ultimately caused a large rise in living standards: peasants were able to command higher wages (despite the ruling class attempting to stop this), and, for many, wages in money at last.

The Yeoman farmer of Early Modern England was far more prosperous than he had been.

Rural populations are governed naturally by how much food can be produced and mobility within that population. A steady supply of work is necessary. This happened, until the rise of the next affliction: enclosure. The Black Death caused many villages to be abandoned, and the modern habit of claiming that one's village is in the domesday book is hardly a great distinction- most villages were.

Enclosure actually started in the aftermath of the Black Death, when landowners lacked the labour for arable farming, and turned to farming animals. For this, the huge field systems were hedged and fenced and made smaller, the basis of many areas field patterns now.

By the 18th century, landowners started to take an interest in farming, instead of sitting on their arses and living off the rents. (Although they did that, too). This mania for "improvement" caused a lot of damage, but most of all to the rural population. Many rural farm labourers were made unemployed, or made to be "day labourers", an uncertain future where a man must seek work every day or so. Rural poverty forced many into the towns.

In medieval England, only 4 towns existed with populations greater than 30,000. London, Bristol, Norwich and York. All were important trade centres or ports, or could be accessed via water. By the early modern period, more towns grew to this size and their populations were swelled by those fleeing rural poverty. However, this coincided with the end product of Enclosure: wool. Wool became the basis of England's wealth, and whilst initially, wool furnished mere cottage industries, nevertheless, an entire industry sprang up: spinners, weavers, dyers, hauliers, and associated textiles. George Eliot's "Silas Marner" was a weaver from Manchester.

With the towns getting larger, feeding them became very profitable (for the landowner: his former employees got the workhouse or much diminished living standards, and even his former rights to walk where he wanted was cut off. This was an era of mantraps and "keep out" signs).

So, to put it simply: Black Death caused low population; low population caused labour shortage; labour shortage made landowners find new ways to farm; new ways to farm involved enclosure and less need for labour; unemployment and lower living standards made the rural poor move to the towns; the larger town populations caused a demand for more food; enclosure meant more wool and industry was born out of this. Both resulted in better food production, distribution and in better wages (if poorer standards of living) in the towns.

However, the human cost is rarely considered. The wealthy make the poor unemployed, build workhouses, and then blame the poor for being poor. Does this sound familiar at all?

Black Dog said:

They fancy sheep in Yorkshire. Only they call them "lasses" ("Hurry up, tha' doesn't want to gerroff with n'ugly 'un").

(I'm a Lancastrian, without even a trace element of "Hooray Henry").

Yes, if the English were taught their history properly, they'd realise that their biggest enemy wasn't the Scots, Welsh, Irish or French, but their own ruling classes. Our Celtic cousins are perhaps fortunate that they can blame their woes on the English ruling classes.

So, why did England get so big a population? Well, it reached its medieval peak in the 11th century. Probably around 6 million. By the time of the Black Death, that population had reduced quite considerably because of a long series of bad harvests, war and, finally, Black Death.

Following the Black Death, the population took a long time to recover. A shortage of manpower led many landowners to take up farming animals exclusively (something that was relatively rare in medieval England). Marginal and upland areas were de-populated as people moved to more fertile/manageable areas. It may sound strange, but for the survivors of the plague, de-population ultimately caused a large rise in living standards: peasants were able to command higher wages (despite the ruling class attempting to stop this), and, for many, wages in money at last.

The Yeoman farmer of Early Modern England was far more prosperous than he had been.

Rural populations are governed naturally by how much food can be produced and mobility within that population. A steady supply of work is necessary. This happened, until the rise of the next affliction: enclosure. The Black Death caused many villages to be abandoned, and the modern habit of claiming that one's village is in the domesday book is hardly a great distinction- most villages were.

Enclosure actually started in the aftermath of the Black Death, when landowners lacked the labour for arable farming, and turned to farming animals. For this, the huge field systems were hedged and fenced and made smaller, the basis of many areas field patterns now.

By the 18th century, landowners started to take an interest in farming, instead of sitting on their arses and living off the rents. (Although they did that, too). This mania for "improvement" caused a lot of damage, but most of all to the rural population. Many rural farm labourers were made unemployed, or made to be "day labourers", an uncertain future where a man must seek work every day or so. Rural poverty forced many into the towns.

In medieval England, only 4 towns existed with populations greater than 30,000. London, Bristol, Norwich and York. All were important trade centres or ports, or could be accessed via water. By the early modern period, more towns grew to this size and their populations were swelled by those fleeing rural poverty. However, this coincided with the end product of Enclosure: wool. Wool became the basis of England's wealth, and whilst initially, wool furnished mere cottage industries, nevertheless, an entire industry sprang up: spinners, weavers, dyers, hauliers, and associated textiles. George Eliot's "Silas Marner" was a weaver from Manchester.

With the towns getting larger, feeding them became very profitable (for the landowner: his former employees got the workhouse or much diminished living standards, and even his former rights to walk where he wanted was cut off. This was an era of mantraps and "keep out" signs).

So, to put it simply: Black Death caused low population; low population caused labour shortage; labour shortage made landowners find new ways to farm; new ways to farm involved enclosure and less need for labour; unemployment and lower living standards made the rural poor move to the towns; the larger town populations caused a demand for more food; enclosure meant more wool and industry was born out of this. Both resulted in better food production, distribution and in better wages (if poorer standards of living) in the towns.

However, the human cost is rarely considered. The wealthy make the poor unemployed, build workhouses, and then blame the poor for being poor. Does this sound familiar at all?

Click to expand...

All too familiar Black Dog and as usual an articulate and thoughtful post. Paddyboy's hooray henry's remark was in response to another thread where a particularly annoying individual was posting nationalistic gibberish and was not directed at the decent hard working English people. As usual the working class of all nations are being demonised to cover the mistakes made by the ruling elite ie the bankers and their governmental backers.

Von Ranke and Paddyboy: thanks I wasn't offended about the "Hooray Henry" comment at all. I know such people and believe me, they annoy all hell out of me, too

It's very unlucky for real Englishmen that the English stereotype is of such people.

On the other hand, it might be unlucky for the English that a far more common stereotype for them on the Continent should be derived from the behaviour of people like this:

Black Dog said:

Von Ranke and Paddyboy: thanks I wasn't offended about the "Hooray Henry" comment at all. I know such people and believe me, they annoy all hell out of me, too

It's very unlucky for real Englishmen that the English stereotype is of such people.

Click to expand...

Having lived down in the South East and still have family down there I cringe at some of the attitudes of some people down there. They seem to live in their own cocoon of illusion and have no concept of what the real world is all about. Unfortunately they are the ones that over the ages in history have been the ruling classes.

Originally Posted by Von Ranke
I take it you agree with Phil Bennett's pep talk to the Welsh Rugby Union team before they played England in 1977 :

"Look what these bastards have done to Wales. They've taken our coal, our water, our steel. They buy our houses and they only live in them for a fortnight every twelve months. What have they given us ? Absolutely nothing. We've been exploited, ....., controlled and punished by the English-and that's who you are playing this afternoon. "

Click to expand...

How about Rugby Union?

PADDYBOY said:

Spot on Kbear.
When I visit England I can hardly believe how conjested the place is.
English settlers living in Scotland often claim they could never go back to England to live, simply because of the crowding.

Click to expand...

But most of them do go back to England due to the amount of anti-English racism and thuggery they encounter in Scotland, a scale of racism that the Scots never experience in England.

Iolo said:

England is very easily conquered

Click to expand...

Try telling that to those who defeated the Spanish Armada, Napoleon and Hitler.

Black Dog said:

Our Celtic cousins are perhaps fortunate that they can blame their woes on the English ruling classes.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that the "Celtic" nations have never had ruling classes of their own then?

Linschoten said:

On the other hand, it might be unlucky for the English that a far more common stereotype for them on the Continent should be derived from the behaviour of people like this:

Click to expand...

But the Scots, Welsh and IRISH don't have this drunken stereotype, then?

On the other hand, it might be unlucky for the English that a far more common stereotype for them on the Continent should be derived from the behaviour of people like this

Click to expand...

Agreed, but you reap what you sow: it all depends upon what kind of society you want to live in, and the (mostly) English ruling class want that for us, and the same old for themselves.

Are you trying to say that the "Celtic" nations have never had ruling classes of their own then?

Click to expand...

- Brunel

They did. They've been dominated by distant government in London (same as the north of England), who know sweet bugger all about anything north of Watford and who consistently make policy that is detrimental to those areas.

During the days of coal and steel, Governments did everything they could to deter alternative employment from being available in such areas. And when they finally decided that heavy industry must go, they replaced it with nothing. Go to the South Wales valleys, or certain areas of the North of England and Scotland. You'll see. They're still ruined, and ruined even more by the kind of society positively encouraged by every Government since Thatcher: me first, self gratification, and do anything for money. Is it to be wondered that the poor and those on benefits should try to work the system, when the far wealthier- and, indeed, the wealthiest- do so themselves, and for far, far greater sums?

Democracy has to be primarily local to work, otherwise the masses just won't get involved. The recent local round of elections got a pathetic 26% average turnout, mainly because of working class apathy, the knowledge that Government is not for them and takes places, primarily, in London.

I spent time in Cambridge during the late 80's and could not believe the attitudes of these southern, cosy ignoramuses who stated that the north was poor because people didn't want to work. Our country is run by people like that. Of course I resent that. Incidentally, I would die a happy man if I could see the average ciabatta munching, latte dribbling, coucous shovelling middle class southerner down a coal mine for a week. And see the look on the faces of those who survive when they get their pay packets. Priceless.

I would not like to see Scotland get independence for one reason only: it would condemn England (or, at least, those areas I care about) to perpetual Tory and pseudo Tory government. Unless the English masses wake up. Otherwise, best of luck to Scotland and, indeed, Wales, if that's what they want.

You say that the Scots never experience anti Scottish bigotry when in England ? I've heard this claim made by other English posters and honestly can't believe how naive you guys seem to be.

Click to expand...

Since there's every other kind of racial bigotry here, I think it impossible that Scots also would be on the receiving end. The English have it in for the Asians, blacks, French, Germans, Poles, Irish and they take the mickey out of the Welsh. The Scots also get it.

They did. They've been dominated by distant government in London (same as the north of England), who know sweet bugger all about anything north of Watford and who consistently make policy that is detrimental to those areas.

Click to expand...

Now Wales gets to be dominated by a distant government in Cardiff that know sweet bugger all about anything beyond the M4.

DreamWeaver said:

Now Wales gets to be dominated by a distant government in Cardiff that know sweet bugger all about anything beyond the M4.

Click to expand...

It's only distant in the sense that the capitalist English governments had no interest in creating internal communications. They weren't needed when everything valuable was being moved east.

Black Dog said:

They did. They've been dominated by distant government in London (same as the north of England), who know sweet bugger all about anything north of Watford and who consistently make policy that is detrimental to those areas.

During the days of coal and steel, Governments did everything they could to deter alternative employment from being available in such areas. And when they finally decided that heavy industry must go, they replaced it with nothing. Go to the South Wales valleys, or certain areas of the North of England and Scotland. You'll see. They're still ruined, and ruined even more by the kind of society positively encouraged by every Government since Thatcher: me first, self gratification, and do anything for money. Is it to be wondered that the poor and those on benefits should try to work the system, when the far wealthier- and, indeed, the wealthiest- do so themselves, and for far, far greater sums?

Democracy has to be primarily local to work, otherwise the masses just won't get involved. The recent local round of elections got a pathetic 26% average turnout, mainly because of working class apathy, the knowledge that Government is not for them and takes places, primarily, in London.

I spent time in Cambridge during the late 80's and could not believe the attitudes of these southern, cosy ignoramuses who stated that the north was poor because people didn't want to work. Our country is run by people like that. Of course I resent that. Incidentally, I would die a happy man if I could see the average ciabatta munching, latte dribbling, coucous shovelling middle class southerner down a coal mine for a week. And see the look on the faces of those who survive when they get their pay packets. Priceless.

I would not like to see Scotland get independence for one reason only: it would condemn England (or, at least, those areas I care about) to perpetual Tory and pseudo Tory government. Unless the English masses wake up. Otherwise, best of luck to Scotland and, indeed, Wales, if that's what they want.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see what truly classified as "working class" nowadays. Not in that I want to denigrate those who are unemployed for whatever reason, but rather the opposite. Practically everyone down in here (in the much reviled Southlands of Huntingdonshire (technically Cambridgeshire but in my opinion it's hardly like South Cambs and Cambridge itself)) considers themselves "middle class" of one flavour or another, yet many still have tax credits, government welfare, can't afford their own health insurance or own private property. I think what is fundamentally broken in our system is that for whatever reason these people consider themselves "middle class" and not working class. Yes their work doesn't involve being decapitated by a factory loom on a daily basis but working on a shop floor, warehouse or in menial office work is hardly a skilled white-collar profession, yet these people still consider themselves "middle class". Do people have this same mentality up North? That simply because they don't work hard with their hands they are somehow not working class? In the opposite direction many tradesmen earn far more than these bottom cogs and earn more than enough to be part of the middle class but don't really perceive themselves as such. If so then that answers the question as to why the only political choices made in Britain are between Tory and Tory-lite.

In addressing the OP, it has a lot to do with flatland but also drainage. Unlike in Denmark huge areas were drained here, first rather abortively by the Romans, but then later and much more successfully by the Dutch under Charles II, the village next to mine has a street named Vermuyden after one of the engineers. This, combined with England's early industrialisation was key to the large population and in many ways it was because England was ahead of the curve in the Agricultural Revolution and then Industrial Revolution that the population exploded beyond its own agricultural output (we produce a greater proportion of our own food now than before WW1) and soon manufacturing output combined with excess production in the Empire and elsewhere in the world allowed the population to carry on growing. It has very little to do with modern immigration, certainly from the Commonwealth and elsewhere with people of those ethnic persuasions forming only 10% of the population and other Europeans an additional 5%. Fundamentally it was the combination of an early Agricultural Revolution allowing an early Industrial Revolution which allowed industrial output to accelerate beyond other nations and for Britain to effectively "live beyond its means" in regards to food production. Before this England was somewhat of a whipping boy of Europe in both population and revenue as seen in our rather pathetic attempts to play with the Big Boy's in Europe before the 1700s.

Nikator: yes, people believing that they're middle class is widespread here, too. Just about anyone with a job, SKY dish and road legal car. Many are over their heads in debt.

But that was the con trick of the Thatcher/Major/Blair and Brown years: the "two thirds" society, where one 3rd did get rich, the other did OK.... on credit. (The unspoken third suffered "managed decline" and form an untapped labour pool to threaten the rest of us with and to be the target of our ire and prejudices).

I started a thread on the subject of working class identity not long ago. In it, I argued that the working class was just as large as ever, despite what people think, because of de-skilling of their work. For instance, many now work in call centres or administrative jobs where, in effect, they're mere data inputters with no real skills beyond a telephone manner. If you're lucky. The environment in some of these call centres is akin to a battery hen unit. A friend of mine told me that they have software to measure how long a worker spends in the toilet and how long each call takes. And who is taking how many calls.

Of course, pay goes with perceived levels of skill.

Many formerly skilled jobs are less so, now. I started out as a mechanic, and the average modern mechanic doesn't do half the stuff I used to do. Likewise many other trades.

I agree wholeheartedly that people need to be honest and see where they really are in society. For my own part, on paper, I'm highly educated and my work (a 2 pronged attack on the world, namely fixing and sorting out computer systems and photography and writing) isn't what one might call working class. But I remember what I've seen, how I started and so I identify closely with the working class. And, thankfully, I usually get taken for what I am: a northern old fashioned working man.

Not that I have anything against working people from anywhere else- far from it. Divide and conquer is the ruling class's game, and they're at it big time at the moment.