Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kingdom of Great Britain article.
Article policies

Removed from main page: Monarchs however continued to use their English numbers rather than their Scottish ones. Hence when Prince Albert Edward became King in 1901, he was proclaimed 'King Edward VII' even though only England, not Scotland, had had an England VI.

Great Britain lasted from 1707 tp 1801 when its monarchs were Anne, George, George II and George III so there were no Scottish/English naming conflicts. Rmhermen 20:56 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

It is a fair point. The above reference belonged to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland page. The point I was trying to make was that post 1707 the new state that emerged was anglo-centric (centred on England), as shown in the manner by which GB/UK monarchs were numbered. Unfortunately I am not an expert on GB history, being stronger on UK of GB+I/UK of GB + NI. I appreciate your observation. JTD

There never was such a thing as the Kingdom of Great Britain. The official title was the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Please refer to the source documents, The Scottish Act of Union 1707 and the English Act of Union 1707. The Scottish Act states the official title of the new state and its parliament in article III

III That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain.

There are many other references throughout the document which make it clear that the official title is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and that it contains a new Parliament with representatives from Scotland and England. -- Derek Ross 14:11 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

JT, I'm quite prepared to be wrong. It's happened before, it'll happen again. However I don't trust appeals to authority. I find it more useful to know the reasoning that authorities have used in coming to their conclusions. Rather than stating that this is the title because historians say so, I'd prefer that you let us in on the reason why they think so. And I like source documents much better than history books. Now you've obviously got a good reason for wanting to change the title back. Please share it with us. It can be added to the article -- Derek Ross 19:32 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

Derek, we obviously both want to get these things right. (And yes, I have been wrong before too!) My interest is simple. I write a lot about royal/state/presidential titles on an academic level, because studying headships of state is my speciality. When I lectured students, confusion over just what was what caused endless difficulties to undergraduates trying to master the complexities of history. Sometimes titles are ambiguous, sometimes they have evolved over time. Often books (history and otherwise) mix up terms like UK, GB, England, etc. But given that most people reading these pages in Wikipedia won't have the sort of academic backgrounds and qualifications we have, it is important to give clarity where we can give clarity.
The 1707 did refer to a 'united kingdom'. Obviously we cannot interview those who wrote the Act to work out what they meant (is there a page of seances?). So we have to rely on precedent & judgment, offering whatever clarity we can. When they talked about a 'United Kingdom' in 1707, it seems (and this is the consensus I found among senior historians) they were being descriptive, describing what they wanted the new kingdom to be, a united kingdom, rather than giving this new kingdom a name. (Hence its use in the above quote from the Act, which then curiously talks about the parliament of 'Great Britain'. One would expect they to use the official name of the kingdom when referring to the Kingdom's parliament!). The name overwhelmingly used is 'Kingdom of Great Britain', with the word 'united' occasionally used, but not universally until after 1801, when UK was a clear definition of the new post 1801 kingdom. The term 'United Kingdom' might have been relevant if they called it, for example, the 'United Kingdom of England and Scotland'. But instead they used the name for the island of Great Britain as the new legal name for the kingdom. Hence 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. United Kingdom of GB would make no sense, as there is only one GB. Who had it it united with? (Hence 'united' being descriptive.)
When this kingdom merged with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801, the name 'Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' wasn't suitable because it could be seen as indicating two separate kingdoms working together, not a united solitary kingdom. So the term 'United Kingdom' was unambiguously introduced to describe the merged kingdom covering both islands, and adapted in the 1920s when the Irish Free State left. Norman Davies' The Isles is quite clear in the index in describing monarchs between 1707 and 1801 and being 'of Great Britain' and after 1801 as being of the UK (in one of its two incarnations, though even his index has errors, with George V at one point being 'king of England'). Because titles are my area of academic interest, perhaps I am more concerned with them and getting them right than most others. But because different titles refer to different kingdoms, involving England, Scotland, Ireland (or now Northern Ireland), and that has different sensitivities to people studying history in those nations, it is important that Wikipedia get things right if possible.
One final quick point. On Wikipedia I placed references to the Better Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Though 'Better' is technically part of its name, I've removed it because in common discourse and in books, the Act was simply known as the 'Govt. of Ireland Act'. In a similar vein, even if 'united' was occasionally used as part of the GB title (and it seems whether through error or for other reasons it was, though apparently discriptively), as the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is by far the most widely used version, that in itself justifies its use in that form, without the 'united', which was only widely used for the post 1801 kingdom. I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. (PS: happy new year!) JTD 20:24 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to put some of that in the article. I for one find the heading "Kingdom of Great Britain" strange, so I think an explanation available without looking at the talk page is in order.
P.S. It never struck me that a kingdom couldn't be united by itself.Bagpuss 21:27 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
I agree. England and Scotland were united, and thus, 'United Kingdom' is perfectly valid. With no written constitutional document declaring the name, we cannot be sure, but it seems to me that United Kingdom was its name. As well as this, 'The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', would be equally valid, as that was what it was. Unlike before then, where Ireland and Britain had one King sitting on two thrones(Metaphorically, of course), they now had one throne, as had happened in 1707 - it was a near-identical situation. As to 'common usage'. Well, a quick google shows 447 references to 'Kingdom of Great Britain', and 7770 references to "United Kingdom of Great Britain'(Both sans Northern and Ireland). Not conclusive, but it serves to reinforce the point. The fact is, Britain has no official name, but we all learn 1707 as the date of the foundation of the UK, so I'm lending weight to that side of the argument. Oh, and also, the reason Norman Davies called them kings of 'Great Britain' before 1801 and of the UK afterwards is simple pragmatics. 'Great Britain and Ireland' is a mouthful, unlike simple 'Great Britain'.

Perhaps it would be better to use the term "united Kingdom of Great Briatin" (united with a small u) [-- Cap 18:11 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

Hmm. I personally think that that's rather ugly...
James F. (talk) 21:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mais oui! Edits

This user is making several changes to this page that I don't agree with (or believe to be factually inaccurate):

  • The correct dates of the Union Jack should be 1606-1800. The original Union Jack was not created in 1707. It was created in 1606 by royal proclamation, and ceased to be official on Dec. 31, 1800. On Jan 1, 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain was merged into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  • He keeps changing "Act of Union" to "Treaty of Union". The Treaty of Union did not merge the two kingdoms, the Acts did.
  • Link should be to Union Jack (Union Flag is a redirect page).

--JW1805 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the use of Union Flag / Union Jack. The Union Jack is the flag flown from Ships, the Union Flag is the correct term for all other uses. --Colin Angus Mackay 06:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Former

I have restored the word "former" to the opening sentence; otherwise, the fact that the entity no longer exists is not revealed until the final sentence of the article proper. Given the confusion over the various past and present constituents of the UK, that's not helpful to someone unfamiliar with the convoluted history. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I sort of think it's unnecessary to put this right before the first mention at the beginning. It seems like if you put "former" here, you would have to put it at the beginning of several other pages, like Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, etc. I'm going to try and reword the opening. --JW1805 23:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I woudln't have a problem adding former to all the above; it's concise and accurate (a bit like "the late Arthur Askey"). What about:
The Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800), also sometimes known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, was created by...
Andy Mabbett 23:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Since the whole article is written in the past tense, it's fairly obvious that we are talking about an ex-Kingdom long before the end of the article. However I'm not going to object to the use of the word "former" even though it is superfluous. I do however object weakly to the use of the word "nation" since it normally refers to the peoples. The more technically correct word here and the one whose use I would prefer is "state" which refers to the governments. And on the subject of Treaty/Act, both the Scots and the English government published Acts. Neither published a Treaty. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
What about using "country" (instead of nation or state). --JW1805 02:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
"Country" is better than "nation" but technically it refers to a geographical entity -- and no one can deny that Scotland and England were united geographically millions of years before they were united politically, <grin>. I still prefer "state". -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hanover Arms

I have a question. Were the Hanover Arms the Seal of the nation or merely some of the monarchs during this period. Obviously, during the early part of the union, Anne was Queen and she was a Stuart. After her, the house of Hanover did occupy the throne. But the placement of the arms on this page, implies that the Hanover arms were the arms of the kingom, not just the royal family. Was this true? Franklin Moore 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

These arms are here because this was the arms in place at 1801, before the union with Ireland. The Royal Arms of the House of Hanover were the Arms of the Kingdom. Astrotrain 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kingdom of England; Union of the Crowns

Image:J1&2,C1&2 Arms.png Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

  • Actually, some would argue that those first arms were the last used by the Kingdom of England. Did England become part of Great Britain with James, or with Anne (the second arms are postulated as the first held by Great Britain)? Regardless, Anne used the Jacobean arms before the (pro-Hanoverian) Parliament adapted to the Stuart practice of calling their collective island dominion "Great Britain". Regardless of Whiggish Parliamentary perceptions, the succession of James is to this day considered the "Union of the Crowns". That in my mind, makes these arms I provide the first of Great Britain and not the last of England. James himself called it Great Britain, while the Royal website begins the series of Great Britain at James--as do all genealogical charts. Cromwellians be damned, because the status of a kingdom rests on its Crown and not its Parliament--there is no British Republic (the US doesn't count, right?)! There are other reasons behind this madness. There is absolutely nobody from the middle or lower class with royal descent from King James, while the upper class calls itself British--totally anathema to those not of this social status. I think it can probably be further proved that there is nobody from the lesser classes with Protestant Royal ancestors--just Roman Catholic kings (am I right or wrong?).
Monarchs have informally been ascribed these titles since 1603, but calling James I of England is just as retroactively like somebody calling Philip I of Spain "King of Aragon" instead. The constituent countries of Castile and Aragon have not been separated since Philip Habsburg, neither have England and Scotland been separated since James Stuart. This politique of the Stuarts was fought harshly by Parliament, but it is true that it was no different from the Habsburgs--which is why the practice was hated. Reinterpretation of history and that liberal spin of Whiggery descending from Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester (via Oliver Cromwell) does nothing but brainwash schoolchildren into believing otherwise. The revisionist interpretations I am talking about, are the advancement of Protestantism in the British Isles and this is further explained in the omission of King Philip from the Royal website beside Mary--unlike the equal status shown for William and Mary. As a descendent of those Conservative recusants who had priest holes, I will not give in to Liberal Protesant bigotry. There was a United Kingdom of Spain, which preceded in idea a United Kingdom of Great Britain...a Union of the Crowns for both countries. But keep on believing in the Black Legend. IP Address 15:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1603-1707

Here is my reason for reverting these edits. The unified state of the Kingdom of Great Britain was not created until 1707 upon the Acts of Union. During the period from 1603-1707, the two separate Kingdoms of England and Scotland shared a monarch (personal union), but were not a united kingdom. I believe they did style themselves as "Kings of Great Britain", but I think it is misleading to say that the "Kingdom of Great Britain" began in 1603. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken in belief that the civil government is the same as the royal government. The Kingdom of Great Britain existed since James, while the Parliament of Great Britain existed since Anne. It's King vs Parliament in a battle of perceptions on the matter. In any case, such a monumental transition in history could not happen all at once. The Royal website begins the United Kingdom at 1603 until the present, to avoid reliance on convoluted Parliamentary perceptions that over-elongate the several stages of union and regime changes which have continually defined phases in the nature of the British Isles. See here. Lord Loxley 03:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Changing the article to reflect only Royalist history is POV. Yes, there is a school of thought that dictates that the country was founded in 1603, but it has not been taken seriously by any historian of note since the 19th Century. I question it myself, but the parliamentary view is always accepted as fact, and ought to be here. Having said that, there is no reason that there can't be a section (similar to the one I added on the name) that details the Royalist view. Bastin 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean the traditional history is not accepted by the producers of Whig history and those lovers of the aristocrats who took over the country, causing the American War of Independence? Yes, I agree that there should be a dual presentation. Wikipedia is supposed to be fair to all. Lord Loxley 16:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed reference to Whig history from my last message, as it seems rather confusing in the circumstances. Two signs of Whig history are the over-emphasis of early parliamentary importance and the belief in a natural progression towards the present. Since, in this case, the two arguments oppose each other, I thought it best not to invoke the Whigs! Bastin 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really familar with the "Whig History" term. The problem I had was the view that just because England and Scotland had the same monarch, they were the same country. Canada and the UK currently have the same monarch, but are they the same country? Of course not. They have separate Parliaments and a common monarch (just like England and Scotland did from 1603-1707). --JW1805 (Talk) 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
James referred to his royal domain as Great Britain, not the island but the "imperial crowne". The Calvinists objected to his terminology and authority, which they deemed as not befitting his rule. They claimed he was a despot, but this was the first time in history that England and Scotland were fused together. James tried to use the Episcopalian clergy to spread uniformity throughout Great Britain, as a compromise between the Calvinists and Catholics. James treated England the same way he did Scotland. The Irish refer to the Ulster Plantation as a British operation, not English or Scottish. One must see Great Britain from a foreign perspective, rather than as a partisan royal subject. Traditions like those are deeply ingrained, but it was the same thing as Ferdinand and Isabel uniting Spain. Of course, this process was not final until the Habsburg rule--that doesn't mean people refuse to credit F & I for their union of the two Catholic Realms. Why should we deny James and the Stuart family their decent place in history, rather than attribute that to Parliament and leave the first British Royal Family to the wolves because Parliament says so? It is in fact Whig history, which is why I think we should go by international perspectives of post-1603 British Isles politics--which is neutral and unaffected by bias. The United Kingdom was not a Constitutional Monarchy between 1603-1689, but it was in fact a United Kingdom. They shared the same Sovereign and even the same politics, the same religious elements and even language (English and Scots) under the separate parliaments (even same coinage?). Monarchy and Commonwealth used a similar coat of arms, which is pretty much the symbol of modern social identity in the British Isles. The chief difference is that Parliament did not approve of retaining our French connection and so, Plantagenet claims of the French kingdom were removed under Cromwells and Hanoverians. I wish other Englishmen would not be so into anti-French jingoism, because it clouds their understanding of the nature regarding the UK. In fact, it seems like the bigots get to determine how English history is written. We in the Wikipedia community should be above this guttersniping hooliganism. You see, I'm Canadian and understand the Anglo-French relationship as it was supposed to be. Late 17th century aristocrats replaced British identity with a German one, which is why we as Canadians feel that there is a national purpose in Canada's freedom. Lord Loxley 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't matter if they shared the same sovereign, politics, religion, language, or anything else. The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland were two separate countries until the Acts of Union merged them together in 1707. That is the legal and historical consensus. Plenty of countries now and throughout history have shared monarchs, but remained independent of each other (it is called a personal union). It seems like your views about what people "should" believe are your own POV. And I don't think the "foreign perspective" is what we should use. A lot of people today use "England", "Great Britain", and "United Kingdom" interchangeably, but they have distinct legal meanings and aren't the same thing. It's a complicated topic, see British Isles (terminology) for details. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That is the revised and Parliamentary perspective as put forth in Whig history, a form of scholasticism based upon total opposition to the Stuart dynasty and represented by the wealthy and elitist aristocracy. It's not "my" POV, it is the international viewpoint. When referring to the royal dominion of the Stuarts as shown on atlases and maps, they consider it Great Britain because of facts. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Just because the regime changes may have shifted the definition of the United Kingdom since the Jacobean era, doesn't mean that the royal domain was somehow different. They remained the same lands as inherited by the Stewart and Tudor houses. Don't let the Whigs confuse you. Lord Loxley 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
So, since the "royal domain" of Queen Elizabeth II includes Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, does that mean they are the same country? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Since you defend the aristocratic coup d'etat of 1689, could you please explain why the Kingdom of England page has the Tudor arms and not the Stuart arms between 1603 until then? Why do Wikipedia editors like yourself hate the Stuarts so much? Why have this obsession with crediting others for their efforts and martyrdom? Lord Loxley 06:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You're stretching the usual Jacobite opposition to the traditional view of history a tad far. I would make a few factual corrections (they had different currencies, religions, and politics), but whether or not the British Isles could be interepreted as having been one country is immaterial to the most pertinent issue: that of Wikipedia policy.
No, I'm just supporting tradition and precedent vs experimentation and revisionism.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to adopt the accepted (traditional, populist, Hanoverian, Germanic, aristocratic: whatever you want to call it) view as fact as a starting point. Then, if there is significant public or academic debate on the issue, the article ought to present the positions taken by the major participants in as fair and even-handed a manner as possible, giving minority views weight in the article proportional to their weight in the debate. In this case, the traditional (and over-whelming) view is that the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed by the Act of Union 1707. As the opposing view is one of limited popularity, it would be worthy of a brief section, possibly with deeper coverage at the article on the Union of the Crowns, James I of England, Whig history, or another suitable article.
There are two fundamental POVs here; both should be represented, for the dissent from the current mantra of state is held by a significant amount of subjects and former subjects in America and Ireland especially.
On the issue of the Kingdom of England arms, I find myself agreeing; I cannot for the life of me explain why the Tudor arms are used, given that the Kingdom of England existed until 1707. However, if one argues that the Kingdom of Great Britain began in 1603, that means that there was never a House of Stuart in the Kingdom of England, so the Stuarts' arms cannot be used in that article. Bastin 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The Union arms and Union flag have existed since James; those are the first symbols of the United Kingdom between England and Scotland (with France and Ireland duly represented, as they are in Canada to the present day). The "Union of Great Britain and Ireland" is and has always been contested by the Irish commonfolk, whom objected to a previous union having undue weight on Irish affairs. Democracy by weight of the populace and geopolitical advantage; oh, the Irish recall how fair and humanist that was on the part of the British as begun under the Ulster Plantation. The Presbyterians hated (still do; Ian Paisley) Catholics more than the Anglicans had, whom could have cared less just as long as they had the upper hand. [1] and [2] Lord Loxley 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Who would have believed this possible? There is some corner of a foreign field that is forever bananas! All this gibberish about Whigs and Aristocrats and other pesudo-Jacobite claptrap-have you any idea how ridiculous much of the above reads. I suppose, on this evidence, there must be some place where people defend the rights of Prince Arthur against King John, or pursue other chimera down the byways of history! Enough of the humour!. On a sober point of information the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist in any legal sense until 1707; and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not until 1801. What James VI and I styled himself is quite irrelevant; he may have thought of himself in these terms, but he continued to govern Scotland and England as seperate realms, working through their individual parliaments, institutions and executive councils. One last thing-the suggestion that James employed a kind of Episcopal international is laughable in its absurdity. I normally stay clear of debates of this nature; but the Monty Python element in this appealed to my sense of the mischevious! Rcpaterson 01:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down master Calvinist. Are you really so proud that the Bank of England's founder beared your surname? (William Paterson (banker)) You are anachronistically trying to project the Scottish Enlightenment of the Edinburgh Establishment onto this discussion, in an attempt to shut people up from a serious discussion/dissent. The subnational civil services of England and Scotland remained separate until they saw that working together would depose the Stuarts, although it was the Stuart dynasty which brought them together in the first place. Any dominance that England had in the Union was Parliamentary, whilst the Royal family was a Scottish dominance. It was a good trade-off in principal, but failed to satisfy all partisans in practice. You deny all charges of Calvinists that the Stuarts attempted to impose universal Anglican uniformity in the British Isles? What a way to shoot yourself in the foot, while glazing over the Great Rebellion and Revolution. How impressive! Scottish backwardness has never and will never go away. Oh well; I'm married to a Highlander and proud of it. Lord Loxley 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I leave it to others to try to make sense of the above intellectual and verbal contortions; I certainly can't! I hate to be unkind but your understanding of history is as lamentable as your prose style is awful. I can't engage with you on a point by point basis because there is nothing to engage with. Please, please, for your own self-esteem and peace of mind I urge you to keep quite. I am simply trying to save you from further embarrassement-the way you express yourself, your enthusiasms and your ideas look pathetic and sound ridiculous. Moreover, your verbal and intellectual incoherence is almost palpable. I assumed you were child, but your final sentence would indicate not. For goodness sake read over what you have written (How does one 'glaze over' the Great Rebellion; and what does 'you deny all charges of Calvinists' mean?) I would never wish to silence informed debate; but one should always remember the concluding proposition in Wittgenstein's Tractatus-Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, davon muss man schweigen (Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.) Rcpaterson 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if you've silenced yourself, I guess there's nothing to discuss. Lord Loxley 07:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It was always my understanding of history that the state of Great Britain was not created until 1707, but of course had its roots in James being crowned King of England and Ireland and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Protectorate etc. The two countries obviously shared one monarch, like Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia do today, but for example the Scots parliament being able to withdrew troops, but not Royal Scots Navy, during War of the Spanish Succession highlights the independence, to some degree, of both states at the time. Benson85 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that you have described the understanding of 99.999% of us... Derek Ross | Talk 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
In that era, government was determined by the Sovereign and not the subjects. The idea that it was Parliament, was controversial yet unopposed in its own time (the Whigs had almost all the reins of control; opposition was problematic). The struggles for Dutch independence from the Habsburgs largely directed this course of events, at least in perceptions of who was supposed to be in power. Naturally, the accession of William van Orange-Nassau had the effect of presenting that (then) newfound belief about the nature of monarchs and the extent (or lack thereof) of their powers. Just because Parliament's demands eventually prevailed, there is this idea that their version of events should be the official presentation on the nature of the British government. They lived in an era when constitutional, parliamentary rule was barely heard of. Republicanism was new and this notion that Parliament was in charge of state was considered bold or impudent. Therefore, one must return to the social contexts and customs of the time. James provided the Union of two Kingdoms, but because Parliament seized power during the Civil War...the civil organs of state had been stripped from the Sovereign and the union of the monarchy was disrupted (in favour of a republican union) by who would have the power of legislation and other national government things. I'm not denying the prevailing winds of the Glorious Revolution; I'm putting the past in perspective of the events. Why should partisan POV triumphalism take precedent for historical interpretations as described here on the Wikipedia? The writers of Whig history gloss over James's rule and Charles's attempted rule by dismissing it as merely fascist and unrepresentative of the British government. It is really much more complicated than that. The Sovereign was not able to handle a United Kingdom without delegating some powers to the civil service; the notion of Divine Right and absolutism was impractical in such a large and varied landscape such as Great Britain. I'm not arguing for the bad choices James or Charles made; I'm just showing that they were the ones with full jurisdiction on their United Kingdom until the Civil War, when the power shifted to Parliament. They concocted the notion that the Sovereign committed treason, when they were the ones who goaded him to the war and set his head on the block. It was turning the United Kingdom into a United Republic. The situation was turned upside down.
I have sympathies for both the Royal Family and Parliament; they were both right--but that is why the UK turned neither into a republic nor an absolutist state. Each idea or plan was impractical, for the oppositional forces would have annihilated the island and the land would have been seized violently from outer forces. The Realm was weakened by division, so the leaders chose to delegate a choice as to whom would fit a relatively neutral monarch unaffected by biases. Unfortunately, that choice led to Ireland's unsuccessful secession from the community. These are just events described as they happened. It appears that the Whigs wish for there to have never been a record of an Absolutist State, for they always make the charge that other nations have that "shame"--notoriously the political enemies of Parliament whom were sometimes allied with the British monarchy in their disputes with Parliament, especially over religious disputes (Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Calvinism). The fact is, the United Kingdom was formed as an absolutist state without the consent of Parliament--that's the point, the inability to oppose the Sovereign is absolutism and they had no power on the matter until they came up with ideas on how during the reign of Charles. During the reign of James, each Parliament was still bigoted against eachother as "foreigners". They vied for control and the location of the royal court; they were later upset that James forced uniformity upon the whole realm and made them fight eachother by fusing the realms without their advice on how to do it. The Parliaments resisted sharing power and encroachment on their offices, while James didn't care and tried to get them to work with one another. It was his realm, after all. They didn't like that and because the government splintered upon the death of Charles (Scots did not consent to the English regicides, although they had united in opposition to Charles's policies), there is a real sense of inconsistency in the Union until 1707--but that does not mean it did not exist. It was de jure in existence, even if not de facto in existence. That is the "difference" between the Union of the Crowns and Union of the Parliaments. One might say that the two kingdoms were not fully united until the Union with Ireland (which never fully united with Britain, as it hadn't with England either in previous times), when each profited from the exploitation and eviction of Irish Catholics by the Protestant Ascendancy and were more interested in taking out their frustrations on them instead.
Lord Loxley 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Lord of the Treasury

I wanted to point out that the title 'Prime Minister' was not made official until the 20th Century. Before this point, and still being the case to this day, the leading minister would be First Lord of the Treasury, while the Chancellor of the Exchequeur would be the Second Lord of the Treasury. Similarly, a PM was often fashioned 'prime Minister' in this period, as it was an honourary title for the First Lord, not an effective title (especially given the way Governments were formed during this period). Any thoughts? Roche-Kerr 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Act of Union 1707 states "the United Kingdom of Great Britain"

The Act of Union 1707 states the United Kingdom of Great Britain as the long form name of the new country. There is however no basis for the listed name of the Kingdom of Great Britain. It would seem that anyone here at Wikipedia can make up a "fantasy name" (i.e., the Kingdom of Great Britain) and peddle it as fact.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the Acts of Union do mention 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' in many places, they never state that there is either a long form or a short form; only the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 has ever differentiated between the two. Thus, one must rely on the informal use of the short form; from 1707 until 1801, 'Great Britain' was used as the short form in all but name (i.e. Parliament of Great Britain, Peerdom of Great Britain, etc), whereas, after 1801, the unofficial short form transformed into 'United Kingdom', before it was codified in 1927. Of course, if one views the Acts of Union as a 'constitution' for the new state, one could make a good argument, since 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is not mentioned once in the Acts whatsoever.
I happen to agree that the actual name of the state was 'United Kingdom of Great Britain', but that's neither here nor there, since most historians (and the Wikipedia convention) take the opposition view. Thus, the article ought to reflect the prevailing (although not consensus) opinion that the country's name was 'Kingdom of Great Britain', whilst explaining the debate in a manner that is proportionate to the discussion. Bastin 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Most historians view the long form name of the country as the Kingdom of Great Britain? Oh really. Could you please quote those historians that do support this view. Frankly I have not seen ANY historians espousing this view whatsoever.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well JTD is a historian, so if you haven't seen any historians espousing this view whatsoever, read this discussion page and you will see him espousing the view at some length. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


JTD is a historian? Well "bully-for-him". One persons opinion (i.e., JTDs' opinion) does not make the long form name of the country the Kingdom of Great Britain. In my opinion the the long form name of the country is correctly stated as the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

That would make it a tie wouldn't you say eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But given the fact that I was able to find one historian for you with zero effort on my part, it suggests that finding others might not be so difficult as you make out. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No Derek, it does not. One historian's opinion does not make the long form name of the country the Kingdom of Great Britain. I thought Scotsmen where more schooled in reason and logic than you appear to be, Derek. Oh well, there is no accounting for your bias is there, Derek.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't risk violating WP:NPA, Don. Comment on content, not the editor. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Saxifrage, thank you for the kind advise. I appreciate it alot indeed. I was annoyed because I find the arguement presented by Derek Ross is a "Circular Arguement". Since JTD is the individual who claims that the long form name of the country is the Kingdom of Great Britain, he is a "given". In other words we need to quote at least ONE OTHER historian that openly espouses JTDs' position to begin an UN-BIASED discussion of the matter (in my opinion).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did ask for "one" historian who thought this at all, and one was delivered. If that's not really what you were looking for, clarifying might be in order. May I suggest that a search for historians isn't really terribly useful, and that a search for secondary sources that speak to the names of Great Britain would be more helpful? Primary sources are lovely for original research, but aren't terribly good for Wikipedia's purposes. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, come on. The fact that the standard reference of the United Kingdom of Great Britain is not unambiously cited here is patently ridiculous (and typically Wikipedian!). Anyways, I am not going to engage in any edit wars.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a reason that this project is run on consensus, because what seems to be clear to one person isn't always to another. When it's clear to one but not others, it usually means that that person is seeing, assmuing, or knows something that is not available to the others. When that happens, it's very often the case that the reader of the article is going to lack these things too. So, by digging up more explicit evidence in support of what already seems clear to you in order to convince those to whom it is not yet clear, we discover evidence that is necessary for the article to be complete for our readers. This is why repeating your assertion about the name will go nowhere, because it's not good enough for "prime time" in the article when there isn't other evidence on the table enough to convince the other editors. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking scarcely more effort than before, I find the following statement in the first book of Scottish history that I turn to:

The treaty of union laid it down that on and after the 1st of May 1707 the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England should alike come to an end and that there should be in their place a single kingdom of Great Britain.

The historian is R L Mackie. The book is the revised edition of "A Short History of Scotland" published by Oliver and Boyd in 1962 and the quotation can be found as the first sentence in chapter 24. Note his deliberate use of the word "single" rather than the more obvious word "united". -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello Derek Ross. Thank you for that reference. The thing is though your reference only refers to the short form name of the country, i.e., Great Britain. Then in 1801, the short form name of the country, became Great Britain and Ireland. When the Island of Ireland was partitioned in 1921 into the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eirean) and the Province of Northern Ireland it took a futher 6 years until the the short form name of the country, became Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927. All of these names where coined via the designation of the name of the Parliament.
British Parliament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_parliament
Parliament of England
Parliament of Scotland
Parliament of Ireland
Parliament of Great Britain
Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone quote some bone-fide references?

Upon a literal reading of references (1-4), and (6) the long form name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain is supported. Summarily classing the word United as descriptive is quite unsupported, and frankly arbitary.


Act of Union 1707

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707

(1). Act of Union 1707, Article 1.

(2). Act of Union 1707, Article 2.

(3). Act of Union 1707, Article 3.

(4). Act of Union 1707, Article 22.

(5). "Rough guide to British history". 29 April 2006. The Times. URL accessed 13 May 2006.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2156657.html

(6). Act of Union 1707, Article 1.


Reference (5). is an unreferenced internet article that claims the long form name of the Kingdom of Great Britain is the proper one. However where is the proof?


ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't seriously be suggesting that an article published in the Times is disreputable? They don't need to provide references for every statement, unlike Wikipedia, because the Times is written by professional journalists that are held to very high standards of journalistic integrity. Hence, when the Times quotes a representative of the Historical Association, it's because he actually said those words. That is, they won't just make it up, hoping to get away with it.
Furthermore, it's clear that you have failed to understand how that reference relates to the article. It is cited as evidence that there is DEBATE. Since the Historical Association holds one point of view, and the government holds another, one might say that there is definitely debate. Bastin 15:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello Bastin8, the salient passages in the TimesOnline are as follows,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2156657.html
"He also disputes the claim that the Act of Union with Ireland in 1800 marked the birth of the United Kingdom, rather than that signed in 1707 with Scotland, as he wrote."

and

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2156657_2,00.html
"BC The Act of Union in 1707 between Scotland and England created the United Kingdom.
"HA The United Kingdom did not come into being until 1800, with the Act of Union with Ireland, which is not mentioned."

I am an English-Canadian of United Empire Loyalist (i.e., Torie in the USA) descent. I am very pro-British and pro-American. English-Canadians can recognise Mother-Country snobbery as easily as Americans can, but we put up with it a bit more. So please "drop the very proper" act 'mkay.

Now, down to the matter at hand ... WAS the United Kingdom of Great Britain or the Kingdom of Great Britain the long form name of the country formed via the Act of Union 1707?

What side are you on, eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the side of truth, and the truth is that the United Kingdom was founded on 1 January 1801 by the Act of Union 1800. If you must know, that's also the position taken by truly pro-British people; those that insinuate that the country was founded in 1707 reject the fact that the United Kingdom is a union of THREE parts, hence implicitly undermine the rationale for the existence of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. As a Unionist, I find such a POV presented by you to be rather unpalatable, and laugh at your self-description of being 'pro-British'.
On the actual matter at hand, the long form was 'Kingdom of Great Britain', as proven by its reference in all legislation between 1707 and 1800. Whenever the country was named, the formula used was either 'the Kingdom of Great Britain' or 'this Kingdom of Great Britain'. After the Acts of Union 1707 and until the Act of Union 1800, the term 'United Kingdom' (with or without the added 'of Great Britain') was never used in legislation.
Since you regaled me with a pointless family history, I feel obliged to tell you that I'm a British New Zealander of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, and Lebanese descent, not a 'Mother Country snob'. What difference did that make to the facts? Not one jot, so drop the ad hominem attacks Bastin 16:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bastin, you are on the side of truth? Good. You and I should get along just fine then. Part of divining the truth is to start with an open mind. Frankly, I have never heard of the Kingdom of Great Britain and I always believed that the long form name of the Mother-Country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707-1800. I could very well be wrong on this, however perhaps I am not wrong. We shall see eh.

I am willing to debate the proposed long form name of the Mother-Country being Kingdom of Great Britain(instead of it being United Kingdom of Great Britain) if you are. I sincerely mean this. I do eh.

There will be a few difficulties in this regard though. The access (i.e., price) of ordinary books (e.g., textbooks, legal books, encyclopedias, even DICTIONARIES) did not become readly available to "the common-people" until about 1800. Thus the references for the time period of 1707-1800 will be difficult to FERRET-OUT. However, I am very up to the task as I am known by my "favourite-detractors" as "the Ferret" (some would say "the Weasel").

LET THE GAMES BEGIN, GLADIATOR I SALUTE YOU!

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] AVD and Batin8: Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain 1707-1800

Bastin8 wrote,

"On the actual matter at hand, the long form was 'Kingdom of Great Britain', as proven by its reference in all legislation between 1707 and 1800. Whenever the country was named, the formula used was either 'the Kingdom of Great Britain' or 'this Kingdom of Great Britain'. After the Acts of Union 1707 and until the Act of Union 1800, the term 'United Kingdom' (with or without the added 'of Great Britain') was never used in legislation"

I have been slowly reviewing the Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain 1707-1800

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Acts_of_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament


and I have noticed a pattern. Between 1707-1800 the short form name Great Britain is used ALOT. However, can you point me to some Act of Parliament that actually uses the long form name of the Kingdom of Great Britain?


I, of course, am looking for ones containing the long form name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't take your 'challenge' to a 'gladiatorial' duel seriously. Silly me. Well, Google 'this Kingdom of Great Britain', and you'll find: Act for the Security of Her Majesty's Person 1707, and British Nationality Act 1772. As you can see, that style was used (sometimes; 'Great Britain' was used predominantly). Google 'this United Kingdom of Great Britain', and you find nothing; 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' was never used, except in the Acts of Union 1707, since it was an entirely descriptive term in the legislative context. Bastin 00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bastin8, the majority of the public knows the country as United Kingdom of Great Britain. Nothing has been provided either way to resolve the issue.

Additionally,

"... this kingdom of Great Britain..."

the word kingdom is not capitalised.

"... this republic of America,..."
"... this dominion of Canada..."
"... this dominion of Australia..."
"... this dominion of New Zealand..."
"... this dominion of Newfoundland..."
"... this dominion of South Africa..."

are all equivalent statements. In other words the short form name of Great Britain is all we can agree on right now.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong on every single count:
  1. The majority of the public knows the country as 'Great Britain'. In fact, even when referring to the United Kingdom, that is probably true! More pertinent than what laymen think is that most experts and academics use the term 'Kingdom of Great Britain'.
  2. 'Kingdom' is capitalised in those Acts.
  3. 'Republic of Armenia', etc are/were the long forms of the names. Hence, the article on Armenia begins: "Armenia, officially the Republic of Armenia". The only difference here is that this article cannot be named 'Great Britain' for obvious reasons.
You still haven't provided any references to promote your point of view. That is damning. Bastin 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bastin8, most people know the country under the long form name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the short form name of Great Britain. The term the United Kingdom of Great Britain is clearly and explicitly written in the Act of Union 1707. Yet somehow, people like yourself argue that the word United is not part of the long form name and merely a descriptive adjective. In that vein, the words United Kingdom could be dismissed as descriptive adjectives as well, thus leaving only Great Britain.

This whole arguement of yours is patiently stupid. The United Kingdom of Great Britain is the long form name of the country defined in the Act of Union 1707.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

'Patently stupid' perfectly define your position. The term is NEVER used after 1707. It is ONLY used in reference to the action of merging between England and Scotland, and not to the consequence of the merger (that is, the Kingdom of Great Britain: the subject of this article). Indeed, in the Acts of Union 1707, the Parliamentary and Royal titles (which are considered to dictate the country's style; see Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927) are clearly denoted as 'Great Britain' between 1707 and 1800, unlike the 'United Kingdom' that they were from 1801 (see Style of the British Sovereign).
I have since provided evidence that the term 'Kingdom of Great Britain' (with 'Kingdom' capitalised and used as part of the long form of the name) was used in legislation between 1707 and 1800. You have provided no evidence of anything, and have (indeed) rationalised your actions by citing your own 'pro-British' POV. Hence, I, and other impartial observers, must consider your actions to be a refusal to take a NPOV; this article already takes a NPOV by giving BOTH names and then introducing the debate. In such a situation, your persistent edits imposing your POV can only be considered to be vandalism, per Wikipedia:Vandalism. Bastin 13:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bastin8, please stop your rambling, and stick to the matter at hand. First off, the Act of Union 1707 explicitly cites the long form name as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Next, the short form name is Great Britain. This is not "rocket-science". I am well versed in Style and Title, and their British Constitutional meanings.

Great Britain had as its figure-head of state a King/Queen. Thus, it would be known as a kingdom. Thus to say

"... this kingdom of Great Britain..."

is no big surprise, however it does not qualify as the country's full name.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not well versed in either style or title, clearly. 'Kingdom' is capitalised in the references that I have provided (the BNA having been passed in an age in which capitlisation had become important, unlike in 1707), indicating that they are citing the official name, in the same way as 'this Federal Republic of Germany' might do similarly.
Neither I nor Wikipedia will put up with your unsupported assertions and circular arguments any longer. Until you provide a reference, your edits are considered vandalism, and will be reverted on sight. Bastin 14:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Batin8, I am well versed in Style and Title. Next up the Act of Union 1707 clearly cites the term United Kingdom of Great Britain. So that is what I am sticking with.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Stick with it all you want. Wikipedia sticks with the position that is taken by most evidence and most historians, whilst providing an outline of the debate in a later section.
Next up, the Act of Union 1800, which refers to the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' without using the word 'united' in reference to the previously extant polity. Bastin 14:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As previously stated, the Act of Union 1707 clearly cites the term United Kingdom of Great Britain. Perhaps you should read it again, very slowing and very carefully. All those "big words" eh. It seems the "English Language" may be escaping your reading comprehension, at this present time.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: name of the kingdom

This is a dispute about what the official name of the kingdom was. Bastin 14:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

  • The Act of Union 1707 states the United Kingdom of Great Britain as the long form name of the new country. ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Whilst the Acts of Union do mention 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' in many places, they never state that there is either a long form or a short form; only the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 has ever differentiated between the two. Bastin 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note [R L Mackie's] deliberate use of the word "single" rather than the more obvious word "united". Derek Ross 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • As a compromise between the two positions, and as a reflection of the debate over the name, I wrote a referenced paragraph dedicated to the issue, balancing up the two sides. The introduction as it is now also gives the two names. AVD has repeatedly deleted references to 'Kingdom of Great Britain' despite this compromise and the weight of sources that have been provided. Bastin 14:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Bastin8, please read very closely the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. It only changed the name of Parliament to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from its original 1801 designation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This was done to dodge the thorny issue of offically naming the Province of Northern Ireland. ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
As an expert on that particular piece of legislation (and the secession of Southern Ireland generally), I can only advise you to read RaPTA yourself. It does not concern the naming of the 'Province [sic.] of Northern Ireland', because Northern Ireland had been named (as merely 'Northern Ireland', and NOT as a province) by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The part to which I referred is Section 2(2), which clearly defines the term 'United Kingdom' as the short form of the country's name (which had never been done before). Bastin 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Derek Ross, yes the United Kingdom of Great Britain was a single kingdom. Your point is what?ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
My point is that R L Mackie used that word deliberately instead of the more obvious word "united" because he wished to avoid ambiguity over whether the name of the new kingdom was The Kingdom of Great Britain or The United Kingdom of Great Britain. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Derek Ross. Ambiguity? What ambiguity? The United Kingdom of Great Britain is the long form name that the majority of the public knows the country as. The only "ambiguity" is the manufactured ambiguity here at Wikipedia.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Compromise: change article name to United Kingdom of Great Britain

Since it is explicitly written in the Act of Union 1707, how about we change the name of the Wikipedia article to the United Kingdom of Great Britain ? As well, we could change the order of the competing names, i.e., put United Kingdom of Great Britain first, and Kingdom of Great Britain second?

For example why not write it like this,

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, also known as the Kingdom of Great Britain, was a state in Western Europe, in existence from 1707 to 1800. It was created by the merger of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, under the Acts of Union 1707, to create a single kingdom encompassing the whole of the island of Great Britain.

Seems appropriate to list United Kingdom of Great Britain first, given it is mentioned in the Act of Union 1707, right.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't understand the word 'compromise', don't use it. And don't use 'comprise', either. How about we stick with this compromise? The name that is used most often, and with most justification, is given as the actual name, and the name that is used by a minority of sources is given full treatment in a suitable paragraph. Bastin 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bastin8. Yes, I mispelled compromised and proposed. Thank you very much for correcting my spelling.

With regards to the Act of Union 1707, the long form name of United Kingdom of Great Britain does appear in that document, and it is CAPITALISED to indicate a PROPER NAME. Since the document that established the new country contains the term United Kingdom of Great Britain a simple person like me-self would be so bold as to presume that the explicitly written text of United Kingdom of Great Britain is actually its intended long form name.

With regards to "...this Kingdom of Great Britain..." or "...this kingdom of Great Britain..." they are BOTH not the PROPER NAME of the country. In fact if you actually read the Acts of Parliament 1707-1800, you will see that the un-capitalised form of "...this kingdom of Great Britain..." is used in the majority of the cases. Therefore the United Kingdom of Great Britain is in fact the more likely candidate, in my humble opinion, as a long form name of the country that existed between 1707-1800.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think that the capitalisation in that Act makes a difference, I suggest that you read the entire Act, and tell me how many other proper nouns you find. The first article capitalises the first letters of ‘two’, ‘one’, ‘name’, ‘and’, ‘ensigns’, ‘armorial’, flags’, ‘banners’, ‘standards’, ‘sea’, ‘land’, and the verb ‘united’, in addition to the noun ‘united’. Please tell me that you don’t think them ALL to be proper nouns.
The reason for the capitalisation is historic; as the literature of Dryden, Swift, or Defoe, and you’ll see copious capitalisation, without any regard for the rules as we know them today. See Capitalization, which gives this as an example of historic capitalisation, removed from the present style. This dropped out of fashion in the late 18th century.
Hence, the capitalisation of 'United' cannot be considered to be any sort of evidence unless corroborated by secondary sources, which is not the case. Most historians consider the title of the country to have been ‘Kingdom of Great Britain’, as illustrated in the Times article referenced. The Historical Association is a reputable source, whereas you are not. Bastin 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bastin8,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article711052.ece?token=null&offset=12

BC The Act of Union in 1707 between Scotland and England created the United Kingdom

HA The United Kingdom did not come into being until 1800, with the Act of Union with Ireland, which is not mentioned

This is an un-referenced London Times article. This does not measure up to a checkable reference.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Times is probably the most reputable newspaper on Earth; none of their stories will be unreferenced. If you want their sources, phone up the newspaper and ask for the name of the person at the Historical Association that gave that summary of their position. Since it is assumed that all such newspaper articles are similarly referenced, mainstream newspapers count as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Bastin 13:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastin8, the London Times article is not checkable. There are no cited references. It is just a webpage of the London Times . Just because they may write "the Moon is made of green-cheese" does not make it so. Find some other checkable references please.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud, read Wikipedia:Reliable source: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible". And stop calling it the 'London Times'; it's a national newspaper, so is called just 'The Times'.
Your ignorance of journalism is staggering, so, having worked as a reporter, I feel it my duty to put you straight on this particular issue. Generally, newspapers don't provide cited references, because they would take up too much space. However, any reputable newspaper (the Times being probably the MOST reputable newspaper) will be happy to provide exact source material for most of their articles if it is requested. Hence, it is 'checkable'. Bastin 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastin8, please refrain from being rude. Your tone of voice is that of "the superior", and I do not care for it.

The Times online webpage does not constitute a checkable reference. The whole premise of this Wikipedia article Kingdom of Great Britain is completely unsupported. The Act of Union 1707 contains the text United Kingdom of Great Britain, and it is repeated several times in the Act.

The arguement that you support (i.e., the Capitalisation is meaningless) can result in either (i)., or (ii)., as listed below,

(i). united kingdom of Great Britain,

(ii). united Kingdom of Great Britain,

(iii). United Kingdom of Great Britain,

whereas if one takes the Act of Union 1707 at face value, then (iii). (i.e.,United Kingdom of Great Britain ) is the long form name of the country founded in 1707. The majority of the public knows it under this name (i.e., (iii).).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My tone is superior because my argument is superior. Your ignorant rejection of opposing evidence, your fraudulent attempts at a pretence to compromise, and your infantile using of blue font colouring are pathetic; it tests no argument, only the patience of other people.
You claim that the article is not 'checkable' because it's the 'online webpage', as if it were a blog published from an Islington bedsit. It is an article that was published in the Times (page 3, IIRC; I distinctly remember having read that article), and hence lives up to the highest journalistic standards in the world. The reporter would have had references for all of his statements.
On your last point, non, non, et mille fois, non. 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' was used ONLY in 1707; in 1708, 1709, 1710, etc, right up until 1800, the term 'Kingdom of Great Britain' was used. That proves that 'united' is used as a descriptive word, as it was never legally used after the Union between England and Scotland. Furthermore, again, I direct you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Primary sources CANNOT be used if there is a disagreement over the interpretation by experts (the policy uses the example of the Bible; this is similar). In such cases, one uses secondary sources; since almost all modern historians use 'Kingdom of Great Britain' (witness the Historical Association's position), the secondary sources clearly come down on that side. Bastin 11:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastin8, I repeat that the assertion that you and Jtdirl advocate is simply not supported by any checkable references. The majority of the public knows the country that existed between 1707-1800 (via the Act of Union 1707) as the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

http://www.know-britain.com/general/great_britain.html

The term "Great Britain" came into being when England and Scotland became a single kingdom under King James VI of Scotland who also became King James I of England, after the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603. It must be remembered, however, that this was not a political union but merely the union of the crowns of the two countries. Politically they were still two states, each with its own Parliament.1 Political union came about only during the reign of Queen Anne, in 1707. It was in this year that the Scottish Parliament assembled for the last time and the formal union of Parliaments was effected. It was on 1 May of that same year that the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" came into existence.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/britain/xuk.html

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the Act of Union, passed by the parliaments of Scotland and England in 1707, in 1800 it was extended to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in 1921 reduced to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the latter usually referred to as the United Kingdom or the UK."

Additionaly, one does not even need to leave THIS DISCUSSION PAGE to come up with a descenting opinion (which frankly matches my own), Derek Ross here in 2002 said the following (at the top of this page),

"There never was such a thing as the Kingdom of Great Britain. The official title was the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Please refer to the source documents, The Scottish Act of Union 1707 and the English Act of Union 1707. The Scottish Act states the official title of the new state and its parliament in article III"
"III That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain."
"There are many other references throughout the document which make it clear that the official title is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and that it contains a new Parliament with representatives from Scotland and England. -- Derek Ross 14:11 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)"

Bastin8, your rapid-protestations to the contrary need to be backed up with citable references. The onus is on you and Jtdirl to come up with a LIST of RESPECTED HISTORIANS that advocate the the Kingdom of Great Britain over Style and Title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (I mean bloody-hell, NAME THREE for Christ sake!!).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain
The United Kingdom of Great Britain
America
The United States of America
It seems to me that if we dropped the "United States of" part because it contains mere descriptive adjectives, we'd be left with America. Which is fine, except some (South) Americans live below the Equator. For the purpose of clarity, don't we use "United States" or "The United States of America" to signify what we mean?
Using "The United Kingdom of Great Britain" covers ALL forms of the name of the country located across the sea from France. If someone searches for information about "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom" they will come to the same source. Which is good, because that is what they want.
ShePlaysByEar 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is tradition that countries have a long form name, and short form name. Just as people have a full name (i.e., First Name, Middle Name, Last Name), countries have "full names" as well.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain or the Kingdom of Great Britain are the disputed long form name(s) of the country that existed from 1707-1800. How would you feel if someone tried to mess with the long form of the United States of America?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How is changing the name of this article back to United Kingdom of Great Britain a compromise? Its simply what the country was called, and that should be reflected. This labelling as "Kingdom Of Great Britain" is basically OR. Should we perhaps change the name of the United States of America to States of America or to united States of America? Hurry up and change the name back please. What the hell is the matter with you people? Stop being so bloody ridiculous! --Mal 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdote

Just to put this tempest in a tea pot into some context... shortly after she ended her final term as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher was interviewed and shared the following quip (not a direct quote)... Normally at official diplomatic functions, one is seated alphabetically by country names ... with Chad seated next to Chile etc. Thatcher said that she enjoyed a somewhat unique status. Depending on who was in attendance and who she wanted to talk to, she could be from "England" if she wanted to sit next to someone from Egypt... "United Kingdom", if she wanted to sit next to someone from the United States... "Britain", if she wanted to talk to someone from Brazil, or "Great Britain", if she wanted to talk with someone from Greece. Blueboar 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another (?) angle on the article title dispute

At the risk of ending up pouring more gasoline into the fire, allow me to suggest another way of looking at this dispute;

There is an article on (1) the concept known as "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and then there is an article on (2) the concept known as either "United Kingdom of Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Great Britain" (depending on which side in this dispute you listen to).

Now, since the above names are fairly long, as well as fairly similar-sounding (at first glance, anyway) and therefore easy to confuse, -- for purely pragmatic reasons, it would make sense to have shortened names for both concepts, and furthermore, it would be convenient to have such abbreviated forms be reasonably different-sounding from each other.

The concept (1) occurs in everyday speech much more often than concept (2) (except, perhaps, in history-buff circles). Concept (1), moreover, has a widely accepted shortened name: "United Kingdom".

Now, if we consider concept (2) and ask ourselves, "what would be a convenient enough way of referring to this concept (2), which would be sufficiently different from the concept (1)'s full and shortened names?", we just might end up with a justification for the current article title, on purely pragmatic grounds (though, perhaps, in doing so, we'd be sacrificing historical accuracy).

You have gotten things backwards. Short-Form Name(s) of countries are traditionally derived from the (offical) Long-Form Name of the country. In other words, a clear agreement on the Long-Form Name of the country is paramount (How would you manage if people couldn't agree on what your Full-name was eh?).
1707-1800
Long-Form name: United Kingdom of Great Britain
Short-Form name(s): Britain, United Kingdom, Great Britain
1801-1927
Long-Form name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Short-Form name(s): Britain, United Kingdom, Great Britain and Ireland
post-1927
Long-Form name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Short-Form name(s): Britain, United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In other words, having the same short-form name is acceptable (e.g., there are many people with the same First-Name ), however, the (offical) long-form name must be unique to the country.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
consider this: what happens when there are two people in the same family, who happen to share the same first name? they come up with some way of distinguishing between the two, eg "John Sr" vs "John Jr". My point is: although, as you say, "having the same short-form name is acceptable" in general, in some situations -- when there's a possibility of confusion -- it becomes, in a certain sense, less "acceptable"; it can become something of a problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.123.93.176 (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Interwiki request

{{editprotected}} Hi, please add:

nl:Koninkrijk Groot-Britannië

to the interwiki links. Thanks! Jvhertum 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected the page, you may add it yourself. CMummert · talk 12:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Realm of Great Britain, Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain?

Bastin8, you advocate that the long form name mentioned several times in the Act of Union 1707 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain is in fact NOT the countrys' name. You (and jtdirl) advocate that the proper long form name is instead just the Kingdom of Great Britain. Your rational is based on,

(i). ignoring (selectively) the capitalisation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, making it

united Kingdom of Great Britain, well why not this

united kingdom of Great Britain then?

(ii). quoting the phrase this Kingdom of Great Britain, well it could be just,

this kingdom of Great Britain right?

(iii). lastly the term this Realm of Great Britain occurs quite frequently as well, and could be,

this realm of Great Britain as well.

Thus, your whole arguement for the long form name being the Kingdom of Great Britain is seriously flawed.

What defense do you have?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained my argument. However, as I have already explained at great lengths, I personally don't even have to have an argument. I am referring to secondary sources. You are not. Most historians (of those that don't use just 'Great Britain') use 'Kingdom of Great Britain', and very few ever use 'United Kingdom of Great Britain'. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and relies on the primacy of secondary sources where such sources apply, your argument falls unless you produce reliable secondary sources. Until then, your edits are vandalism. Please desist, or I will report your abuses. Bastin 00:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bastin8: Where are your Secondary Sources?

So Bastin8, where are your Secondary Sources that claim the long form name is the Kingdom of Great Britain?

(1). Act of Union 1707, Article 1.
(2). Act of Union 1707, Article 2.
(3). Act of Union 1707, Article 3.
(4). Act of Union 1707, Article 22.
(5). "Rough guide to British history". 29 April 2006. The Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2156657.html
URL accessed 13 May 2006.
(6). Act of Union 1707, Article 1.


References (1-4) and (6) back-up the long form name of United Kingdom of Great Britain. The single document they cite is the Act of Union 1707. Therefore we have one Primary Source with FIVE REFERENCES to United Kingdom of Great Britain.


Reference (5) backs-up the long form name of Kingdom of Great Britain, in your opinion. I presume your assertion is based on this text,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article711052.ece?token=null&offset=12
BC The Act of Union in 1707 between Scotland and England created the United Kingdom
HA The United Kingdom did not come into being until 1800, with the Act of Union with Ireland, which is not mentioned

Just where does this mention the long form name of the Kingdom of Great Britain? I fail to see this mentioned ANYWHERE in the text of this webpage document of "The Times".

You have not established that,

(i). The Times webpage is a bone-fide Secondary Source,

(ii). The Times webpage explicitly mentions in its TEXT the phrase Kingdom of Great Britain.

Where is your PROOF Bastin8? I say that YOU have produced NO PROOF whatsoever, and you are just aggressively pushing YOUR POV. Either produce some PROOF of your claim, or stop reverting the long form name of United Kingdom of Great Britain to that of Kingdom of Great Britain.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate has been going on long enough why not just request a WP:RM and from what I can see the name should be United Kingdom of Great Britain. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
First, the Times is most certainly a bona fide secondary source. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, and you'll notice that even less well-established newspapers of record (e.g. the Guardian) are considered to be reputable.
Second, the source quite clear states that historians disagree with Crick's assertion that the 'Act of Union with Scotland in 1707 marked the birth of the United Kingdom'. They state that the United Kingdom was born in 1801. Hence, they disagree with your position that it was the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain'.
Third, there are countless contemporary ([3]) and modern ([4]) sources that you might care to observe. You'll also note that, where modern standards of capitalisation are applied to the text of the Acts of Union, they go with 'united Kingdom of Great Britain' ([5]). Since 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is the way that historians and other encyclopaedia render the name, it is the NPOV way for Wikipedia to render it.
Fourth, you're the one vandalising the article repeatedly, so to accuse me of being aggressive is ridiculous. To be fair, it's no more ridiculous than you insisting on writing in blue, but I've lost the capacity to be amazed by how ridiculous your crusade is. Bastin 12:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello Bastin8, thank you for your thoughtful response. Now we can actually have a frutiful discussion on this issue.

Point 1: (The Times is a bone-fide Secondary Source).

Alright then. To facilate the discussion I will acceed to that assertion. However, upon doing this we must look at WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS, not what you "read-between-the-lines" for it to say.


Point 2: (The United Kingdom was born in 1801).

Short-Form Name(s) of countries are traditionally derived from the (offical) Long-Form Name of the country. In other words, a clear agreement on the Long-Form Name of the country is paramount.

1707-1800
Long-Form name: United Kingdom of Great Britain
Short-Form name(s): Britain, United Kingdom, Great Britain
1801-1927
Long-Form name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Short-Form name(s): Britain, United Kingdom, Great Britain and Ireland
post-1927
Long-Form name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Short-Form name(s): Britain, United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In other words, having the same short-form name is acceptable (e.g., there are many people with the same First-Name ), however, the (offical) long-form name must be unique to the country.

Usage of Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources

(i). Primary Source(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

The original documents of the time (i.e., with NO INTERPRETATION).

(ii). Secondary Source(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source

An analysis, and interpretation of the Primary Sources (and sometimes other Secondary Sources).

(iii). Tertiary Source(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_source

A selection and compilation of Primary and Secondary Sources.


Point 3:


Point 4:


ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime ministers

Why are only the first and last prime ministers of the Kingdom of Great Britain listed in the infobox? Shouldn't we list all 16 of them (or none at all)? Mtford 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Please feel free to go ahead and add them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Act of Settlement ?

The statement "The adoption of the Act of Settlement required that the British monarch be a Protestant descendant of Sophia of Hanover" would appear to be incorrect. Was Queen Anne a descendant of Sophia ? I don't think she was. Eregli bob 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no she wasn't. But then she became Queen many years before the Act of Settlement was adopted. In fact the Act of Settlement was specifically created to spell out what would happen if Queen Anne died without producing a Protestant heir. So the first time the Act became relevant was when she died: it didn't exist when she was crowned. However I'll tweak the statement to clarify it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Bacon

Just for the record, in the essay 'Of The True Greatness Of Kingdoms and Estates', written long before 1707, Francis Bacon specifically refers to the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. Here's the extract: 'Whereas those that be strongest by land, are many times nevertheless in great straits. Surely, at this day, with us of Europe, the vantage of strength at sea (which is one of the principal dowries of this kingdom of Great Britain) is great; both because most of the kingdoms of Europe, are not merely inland, but girt with the sea most part of their compass; and because the wealth of both Indies seems in great part, but an accessory to the command of the seas.' This article refers to only the 'island of Great Britain' existing under a single monarch from 1603, but the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' being in existence from 1707 only, so I'm wondering is Bacon's the earliest reference to an entity called the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'? Captain Fearnought (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So if you are advancing that this Kingdom of Great Britain is implied cited by Francis Bacon, where then pray tell is the country called the Kingdoms of Europe? Did this country called the Kingdoms of Europe encompass all of Continental Europe?Wow ... what a "grand-discovery" ... a new country whose name was the Kingdoms of Europe. How were we all so stupid to miss this one eh!
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know what to say about that, except perhaps propose some English for beginners course. 'This kingdom of Great Britain' was used as a proper noun, but 'kingdoms of Europe', like 'cities of Europe' or 'countries of Europe', was not. Captain Fearnought (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Armchair- this should be renamed "United Kingdom of Great Britain" mainly because after reading the Act of Union, it contains no mention (as far as I could tell, forgive me if I missed one I'm tired) of "Kingdom of Great Britain." Furthermore, the Francis Bacon stuff above from Fearnought is irrelevant as surely this article refers to the state/nation/country /whatever created by the Act of Union 1707? You said he mentioned "Kingdom of Great Britain" before 1707 so it doesn't have any relevance to do with this state created. However, I do believe the term "Kingdom of Great Britain" is still relevant, so if the article name is changed (which it should be) then a new section (or an edit of the "Name" section) should be made to discuss the history of the present name the article has. Both names should be on this page, but "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is the one that should be used, the other being an alternative (perhaps informal?) name. What do you guys think?Deamon138 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're still historically wrong. It was the Parliament of Great Britian, it remains the Peerage of Great Britain, and so on. The name of it has been disputed, true, but the historical consensus is that the name was 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. Bastin 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Bastin the official site of my Parliament [[6]] has at the top "United Kingdom Parliament" so it doesn't remain so. And in any fact, this site disagrees that it ever was the "Parliament of Great Britain" from 1707 as according to [[7]] "The Parliament of the United Kingdom met for the first time in October 1707." Also, it states that the Act created "the United Kingdom of Great Britain." And on this page[[8]] it says the same. I've read the argument on the article that the word "United" is just a descriptive word in the Act, but surely the same could be said of the word "Kingdom" which just describes Great Britain? Thus it should be either "United Kingdom of Great Britain" or just "Great Britain" but not half-way between. I mean, no-one ever calls England the "Kingdom of England." Deamon138 (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't state that it remained so. The political and historical illiteracy of the web editors of Parliament's website is enough to justify the section about the name, but not really enough to outweigh actual evidence. Say, by the fact that all legislation passed in that time called it the Parliament of Great Britain in the preamble but that this was transformed into 'Parliament of the United Kingdom' in 1801. Or, say, by the fact that most historians will consider it to be so (such that their professional body made the news for protesting that a layman considered your position to be correct!).
Everyone calls England the Kingdom of England. That's why the article on Wikipedia is titled thusly. 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)