From Smudge's link
"He is patron saint not only of England but also of Aragon, Catalonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Palestine, Portugal, Germany and Greece; and of Moscow, Istanbul, Genoa and Venice (second to Saint Mark). He's also patron saint of soldiers, archers, cavalry and chivalry, farmers and field workers, riders and saddlers, and he helps those suffering from leprosy, plague and syphilis. In recent years he has been adopted as patron saint of Scouts."
So just a few then..
As to Wales - well have really only gained an interest since living here and getting brassed off with some of the pro-Welsh propaganda that gets shoved out by a very few people with very big voices.
At the time of the Saxons, England was not a unified country, it was a number of separate parts, ruled either from within or from Denmark etc. Chunks of Scotland were at the time parts of Denmark and Wales was also a number of separate entities, who would band together - sometimes - in a common cause, just as the kingdoms of England would. Cymru is the name of a royal house from the South West of Wales, the etymology of "Wales" is non-germanic foreigner, to the Saxons the Brythonic people of these Isles and the people of Roman extraction were all Welsh, Wales became the name applied to the whole area of the mid and south of these isles that were not 'Germanic'. Hence why Cornwall was officially West Wales for many years, despite being nothing to do with 'Wales'. So the single entity of Wales did not arise from a joining together of the 'Welsh' - who had some very equitable but divisive rules of inheritance that served to prevent unification, but from what they were not. (Germanic / Saxon)
The Welsh Marches were neither English nor Welsh up until Henry VIII, and Monmouth has been part of England or Wales many times over the last 500 years.
It is great to have local identity and I think the local focus places like Totness are developing under the Transition ideas is great, but a lot of "Welsh" history is being rewritten to serve an end, rather than as a foundation for social cohesiveness.
One of the revisions I find particularly interesting is that about Owain Glyndwr and how (apparently) he would have become King of England and Wales, or an independent Wales at least, had Hotspur not given battle to the Kings forces at Shrewsbury, rather he should have waited until Glyndwr's forces got there. There are no reliable historical records to show that the Welsh forces were anywhere near Shrewsbury, and they had actually been defeated a week before in Carmarthen. The Kings forces were not supposed to be in Shrewsbury and they came out of the town and essentially gave battle to the rebel forces, who were apparently holding the field until Hotspur lifted his visor - for air, to see how things were going - and was struck in the face and killed by either a well aimed arrow or an unfortunate stroke of luck.
The extension that had battle not been joined, a more organised Royal force would have been defeated is an interesting jump, the next one that if the Percy's etal had been successful they would have allowed Glyndwr to establish a power base in Wales or become a ruler in his own right is debatable. But the current story is that the Welsh would now be an independent nation had Percy just waited for Owain...
What this has to do with St George I just do not know...
R
Rubbish spelling is down to my inability not due to not caring
