I want to tear out my hair for the stupidity.
Would it kill people to open a damned history book?
Here is my response in full BECAUSE I CARE, DAMN IT!
"OH... MY... GOD.
England did not exist during Roman occupation. It didn't exist for a while after, either. The invading Germanic forces of the Jutes, Angles (from where we get the name Anglish (English)), and Saxons as well as Danes were merely just other non-Roman tribes staking a claim to the island of Britain.
Unable to stem the attacks, and under attack on other edges of the Empire, Rome withdrew from the island of Britain.
England still wasn't a thing then, either. It was, for the most part, a series of independent kingdoms ruled variously by Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Danes.
It wasn't until the 10th century, 927 or something like that, that these various newly-made kingdoms of foreigners were united under Athelstan, Alfred the Great's grandson (who united the kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex (Wessex, interestingly, called themselves English), and conquered Viking Northumberia). Germanic peoples continued to rule that region, probably calling themselves English, until...
In 1066, William of Normandy, a French-speaking Scandinavian invaded, and won at the Battle of Hastings, and thus became King of the English... and for a while, French was the language du jour. It wasn't until the 14th century or so before English once again became the dominant language in England. It was not for the rest of the island until more recently.
England is the name of one of the kingdoms located on the island of Britain; and island named Britannia by the Romans, a name believed to be derived from the Brythonic Celtic (ancestral language of the Welsh, incidentally) name for the island (Prydein, or something similar). At the time of Roman occupation, there were many, many domains; not one of them England.
Mr. Lee is absolutely correct in saying there would have been no sense of national identity other than a loose confederation of people who share an island. The closest the British came to one was during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61 ad, when Boudicca, queen of the Iceni managed to unite all of three (count 'em) three of the many Celtic tribes living on the island in an effort to push Rome out. Though she razed three cities to the ground, she did not succeed. She might have, if there was some sense of national identity. There was not.
About the question of national identity, Britain still doesn't have one, other than the fact that they live on the same island. Want to test the theory? Ask a Scotsman if he considers himself English. Do the Welsh consider themselves English?
Neither was there in Gaul, which is why Vercingetorix was ultimately unsuccessful in defeating Rome there. National identity came too late to save Gaul, though Vercingetorix did try to stir some up.
Roman Britain is a perfectly reasonable name to use to describe the time and place, given that the Celts living there had only language and place of residence in common (seriously, even a number of important cultural markers like burial traditions differ substantially).
British is accurate.
English is not.
Would it kill people to open a damned history book?"
It's just so damned frustrating!
I'm alright. I'm alright now. *twitch*
And if you didn't know all that, now you do.
Right, now i'm off to learn a BRITISH language that is not English.