Within linguistics, there is no "scientific" distinction between a language (maybe the single most core aspect of culture) and a dialect, beyond "a language is a dialect with an army", and you can trace mutually intelligible "dialect continua" halfway across Europe, crossing borders and languages...
... and the same is maybe true within broader culture - "cultural continua" shifting within and/borders, sharing commonality but with local flavour, and the difference across borders really not much more marked than those within (e.g. is Carlisle closer culturally to London or the Scottish Borders?)
Yes, the English outlook around class and society is not quite the same as the Welsh (or Scottish or N Irish). There’s lots of nuanced bits of positioning, around the arts and politics as well. Sport. Money. Even race itself. Thousands of tiny differences.
Yes, often part of being English is, because of our size within the UK, not noticing our own Englishness. (I once said slightly tongue in cheek that 'Englishness' was 'the warm glow of knowing you are the core component in the joint endeavour that is British culture'.)
That’s also an inherent part of the success of the UK though, right? England had to forget its Englishness to make the idea of a United Kingdom, of Britishness, centred, politically and otherwise, around one constituent part work. If it didn’t do that, would it have worked for hundreds of years?
I think I first read this about 3 years ago (after the T&CA came into force). I really enjoyed it, particularly for its examination of the North/South England continuity over 2000 years, and how Welsh, Scots and Irish were involved in phases of the “English” story. https://www.amazon.com/The-Shortest-History-of-England/dp/1910400696
I think to an extent (the 18th Century language of the North Britons) that might be true, but I'd be inclined to argue that in the case of both Wales and Ireland the history behind creation of the United Kingdom was much more about imposing an English identity and rule.
...that the United Kingdom (and Empire) continued to exist over the centuries because of the centralised English control, implicit within ideas of Britishness.
The outside World, looking at what signifies the British identity, will, in almost every case, see English examples.
I think she sees Englishness as a narrow monoculture based on a set of Home Counties, middle class values which she herself espouses. The idea of a broad culture encompassing a range of values is alien to her. She probably doesn’t even consider working class northerners to be properly English.
I've read this, it's very good. Is the rather amusing error where she thought teenagers on London buses were calling each other 'a suck' still in there? It gave us great pleasure as London teenagers.
Comments
If anything, I'd suggest...
The outside World, looking at what signifies the British identity, will, in almost every case, see English examples.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=watching+the+english+book&crid=2BBCVRIX8JBUW&sprefix=watching+the%2Caps%2C559&ref=nb_sb_ss_mvt-t11-ranker_1_12