As Agbak mentions, the isle of Briton was divided into seven kingdoms, Alfred the Great was the first man to unite the kingdoms against a common enemy and was thus the first King of Britain, he didn’t hold sway over the country, he just buttered up the most powerful kingdoms a bit.
Simon Schama’s history of Britain is vague but provides an easy to understand beginers guide to what the OP is after.
The Anglo-saxon Heptarchy didn’t cover the whole of Great Britain or even what is now England, there were also the Cornish, the Welsh Princes and other Brythonic kingdoms like Cumbria as well as the Scots and Picts who amalgmated.
Alfred the Great definbtely deserves the title the first king of the English and probably the title the first king of England too, though Danelaw meant he didn’t have control over a large swathe of England (IIRC the King of Danelaw recognised his suzernarity tho’)
Having been born in Ormskirk, I ought to know that it was founded by Vikings, not Saxons. Citing other Saxon place names elsewhere in the country is beside the point. Formby, Crosby, Kirkby, Irby, Skelmersdale, Scarisbrick etc. etc. are all Scandinavian not Saxon.
In fact there was celebration of the 1,100[sup]th[/sup] anniversary of the Viking settlement of Wirral and West Lancashire in 2002. That link contains lots of references to relevant academic studies that were made in the lead up to the anniversary.
So noted- correction retracted.
:eek:
Call me pedantic if you like - if pedantic means right - but that should say Ireland.
North and South Island refer to New Zealand in my brain, and last time I looked, I didn’t live in the southern hemisphere!
:o No, I won’t call you a pendant. I’ll call myself an idiot if you like. Of course I intended Ireland. Sorry.
And to answer the much much earlier question about the nature of the “terminological inactitude” I was referring to - it was the habit on the continent of Europe and in the US of referring to England when you mean the United Kingdom, but also when you really do mean England (only). Suspect folk will call me the pendant now. 
Well, you and I can now form the Pedants R Us club - Can’t imagine we’ll be the only members!
Off the top of my head, I think that some of the confusion over the Danelaw and Viking names outside it comes from forgetting that there were different groups of Viking; the Norwegians (or Norsemen?) roamed far over Scotland, its islands, and parts of England and Ireland, whereas the Danes ruled the east of England.
**
With respect, this is somewhat misleading. Only parts of Scotland “maintained a nearly tribal culture until the seventeenth century.” From the middle ages central and eastern Scotland developed in the same way as other parts of Europe, with kings, clerics, merchants, lawyers, universities, writers, architects, etc etc all being deeply involved in European life, especially with France and the low countries. That’s not to say that Highlanders weren’t also internationalist, but someone from Edinburgh probably felt more in common (including language) with someone from Bruges than they did with someone from Kintail.
Clans are most certainly not “still recognizable social entities”. The chiefs all sold out in the 18th and 19th centuries and became English style aristocrats who didn’t give a toss about the people living on their land. Whoever tries to convince you otherwise is after your tourist dollars.
And finally, one should not underestimate the role of the Scots themselves in suppressing the differences between the Highlands and the Lowlands. While the Duke of Cumberland in 1746 could be described as English, he was commanding the British Army, and he had as many Scots under him as Bonny Prince Charlie. It was often the Scottish landowners who forced Highlanders off their lands in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Not exactly. Agback correctly refers to “the division of early England into seven mutually ho[s]tile kingdoms (the ‘Heptarchy’)” (my emphasis) – not “the isle of Briton.” The seven kingdoms – Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Wessex, Kent, and Sussex – covered much of modern-day England, but did not include Wales, Cornwall, or Scotland (except that Northumbria sometimes controlled some of what is now southeastern Scotland).
Again, no. Alfred the Great was definitely never “King of Britain.” And he wasn’t even “the first man to unite the kingdoms.” Aelle of Sussex was recognized as bretwalda – “overlord” – over all the English kingdoms as early as the fifth century. Other minor kings held the overlordship in the ensuing centuries, although the title was sporadic and not continuous. Egbert of Wessex, Alfred’s grandfather, is usually regarded as the first king of England, although he held the overlordship for only a year before Wiglaf of Mercia restored the independent Mercian throne in 830. Alfred’s grandson Athelstan was the first monarch who actually ruled over all England when he acquired the Northumbrian throne in 927.