Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

UKGB

The edit summaries by ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! in emphasizing "United Kingdom of Great Britain" in bold type are on the lines of "the Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain deserve the same font ... this is the norm for Political Divisions with alternate designations" but they are not alternate names. Great Britain is the correct name, stipulated by parliament and invariably used, whereas "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is an incorrect name, not an alternate name. Putting that in bold type gives people the wrong impression that the two names are of equal correctness and equal value, which they are not. Please also see discussions above. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moonraker2. The status quo has been Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain, (i.e., both bolded) for a very long time. The assertion that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is incorrect has been disputed by other editors (myself included for quite some time). The issue is not resolved. Simply put a status quo of bolding both was arrived at. I am gently asking you not to upset that status quo. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree about the status quo, as there have been periods with and without the bolding, but the fundamental question remains the same, and that is what is correct. It is not determined by which change was made last. Can you explain why you believe "United Kingdom of Great Britain" should have equal value with "Kingdom of Great Britain"? Moonraker2 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you disagree. The status quo has been mutually bolded Names. This modus vivendi has kept things quite peaceful for quite sometime. Please check the Archive Records yourself. I am kindly asking you to maintain this quiet status quo. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! that both version should be in bold. The Treaty of Union, as ratified by the parliaments passing separate Acts of Union refers to the state of 'Great Britain' as the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' as well as 'the said United Kingdom'. The UK parliament webseite also states in its history section that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707. The issue is not clear cut as you imply, and therefore it is not too much to ask that this be reflected in the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Fishiehelper2. Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not agree with this comment about the status quo. Thank you also to Fishiehelper2 for offering some thoughts, but they do not explain why "United Kingdom of Great Britain" should have equal value with "Kingdom of Great Britain". The web site referred to is plainly not a historical authority to compare (for instance) with the Cambridge Modern History. As we have discussed before, the Treaty of Union states plainly that the name of the new state is to be "Great Britain", and until 1800 that was its name, as reflected in tens of thousands of contemporary documents and in the country's written history. As we know, the Treaty of Union does refer to the "United Kingdom", but as a description, not as the name of the state. As a name it did not come into use until 1801. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please check the Archive Records yourself. I am kindly asking you to maintain this quiet status quo. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives, I know the discussions you mean, which do not establish your point. Even if we all agreed that the present version of a sentence in an article is the status quo (which in this case I do not agree with) there is no policy which says the status quo obviates discussion of a serious point. What you seem to be saying is "let's keep it as it is", but if you have any arguments on the point we are dealing with, do please add them here. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

At this juncture ... it seems prudent to suggest that you take this up-the-ladder to an Administrator for some sort of arbitration proceeding. I restate again that I am gently asking you to maintain the status quo (i.e., both Names bolded) that has kept things peaceful and quiet here. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a point to be discussed here on the talk page and is not really worthy of arbitration. With all due respect, it is no argument at all to say that a particular version of the text is better because it is the "status quo" or because it "has kept things peaceful and quiet". The Treaty of Union refers to a "United Kingdom", but it gives capital letters to many other words which are not names and it plainly does not use "United Kingdom" as the name of the country, instead specifying the name as "Great Britain". To mean the British state between 1707 and 1800, how many uses of "United Kingdom of Great Britain" are there in reliable sources such as encyclopedias or academic histories? I should say there are very, very, few, and that there are tens of thousands of uses of "Great Britain" as the name of the 18th century country. The two terms do not have equal status because one is correct and the other is not. Moonraker (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moonraker, we seem to be discussing the same subject again, but must comment because I can not let off with the claim "The two terms do not have equal status because one is correct and the other is not." The truth is that both terms are incorrect! The name of the state created in 1707 was 'Great Britain' - therefore both 'Kingdom of Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' are equally not using the name of the state. I could accept an argument that one term is more frequently used than the other, which is clearly true, but it is simply not true to claim that one term is correct and the other is not. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Fishiehelper2, I agree with that. The only really correct name of the state is Great Britain, without the words "kingdom of", because that name is stipulated in the various treaties and statutes which created it: "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN". Other names based on that (such as "peerage of Great Britain" and "parliament of Great Britain") do not include "Kingdom of", which would be incorrect. You know my view of the Treaty of Union, which is that it uses capital letters in an Augustan way throughout, so that "United Kingdom of" is simply the way the term "united kingdom of" was written. Cf "Protestant Religion" and "Rights and Liberties of the Subject". I think in the title of this page "kingdom of" is used chiefly to differentiate the page from the Great Britain article, which is about the present day geographical island rather than the historical state, but it isn't the only way to do it. Perhaps the way forward here is to demote "Kingdom" to "kingdom" and to use the word only when it's essential. I don't think it's needed in the infobox, for instance. Moonraker (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's important with Wikipedia articles to differentiate between the name of the subject of the article and the name of the article. More often than not, they are identical but in some cases they differ. For instance the names of monarchs are not the same as the names of Wikipedia articles about those monarchs. There are various reasons why this should be so. This article is one of those whose name is not the same as the name of its subject. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The three members of the country refered to as Great Britain after 1707 are the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, and the Kingdom of Scotland. The country refered as Great Britain sat on the geographic feature whose name is the Island of Great Britain. There are long-form Names and short-form Names. The country refered to as Great Britain needs a Feudal Rank (i.e., just like a Military Rank). To use the Name of Great Britain only, strips the new country of its Feudal Rank. This makes no sense in the year 1707 (i.e., they would not of just named a country Great Britain in 1707, they would of named it either the Kingdom of Great Britain or the United Kingdom of Great Britain). Indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they did name the new state 'Great Britain' - this is how the Treaty with England Act begins 'I. THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN; And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint,, and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land.' Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No Spiritofstgeorge, that is not correct. The usage of the term "name of Great Britain" is ambigious. Additionally, the term United Kingdom of Great Britain appears in the Treaty of Union 1707,

http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/union.html

in Articles 2, 3, and 4. I say the name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! I actually think you make a good point - the Treaty does 'united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN' but then goes on to refer to the new new state as 'the United Kingdom' in loads of places. I would be perfectly happy if this article were changed to 'United Kingdom of Great Britain'. The one name that is not supported in the Treaty or the Acts of Union is 'the Kingdom of Great Britain' - that phrase is never used. Why don't you propose to change the name of this article? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"United Kingdom of" is simply the way the term "united kingdom of" was written by the parliamentary law clerks. "Great Britain" was specified in the Treaty of Union and elsewhere as the name of the new country and was subsequently the name used until 1801, when "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was specified as the name of the enlarged Union.

"United Kingdom" does indeed appear in 1707, but as a description rather than as a name. This was an Age which inclined to a very Generous Use of Capital Letters, and the Treaty of Union, like the other statutes, includes such expressions as "United into One Kingdom", "Protestant Religion" and "Rights and Liberties of the Subject". Moonraker (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Who says that the "United" word is really just "united". Why would it not be the "United Kingdom of Great Britain"? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you mean why was "United Kingdom of Great Britain" not the country's name, that's because in 1707 the name "Great Britain" was clearly specified as the name and was invariably used as the name from then until 1801. If you look at the 1707 Treaty's approach to using capital letters you'll see they do not mean names. The Treaty also says "united into One Kingdom", but it did not mean "One Kingdom" to be the name of the country. Because it was not the country's name, "United Kingdom of Great Britain" never needed to be defined in any Act of Parliament, so it never was. The 1801 Acts (of the GB Parliament and the Irish parliament) clearly specified "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as the wider Union's new name, with effect from 1 January 1801, and very soon Acts of Parliament began to define the meaning of the term. Also, from 1801, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", or "United Kingdom" for short, quickly took over as the name used. Moonraker (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker is right except that "United Kingdom" was rarely used as a short form before 1945. They used "Great Britain" or "Britain". Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Primary Reference is the Treaty of Union, 1707 for the Union of England, Wales, and Scotland. A very clear version is given below from this Scottish website,

(Picture of the "Illuminated Document" (i.e., old style caligraphy)

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/history/SPTradition/treaty.htm

Transcribed Text (Conversion from an "Illuminated Document" to a "Printed Document")

http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/union.html

Clearly the Primary Source states the term United Kingdom of Great Britain three times in Articles 2, 3, and 4.

Question: What Secondary Source with a specifically quoted rationale, do you have that overrules the United Kingdom of Great Britain textural source?

Well? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

From just my reading of the history of this, I would think that "United Kingdom," after Union was equally as important a formulation, as Great Britain, if only to assuage some in Scotland, although perhaps in London, Great Britain was more popular. See Allan I. Macinnes, Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707 (Cambridge, 2007) 65.79.14.28 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To Rjensen, I am well versed in the "ins-and-outs" of the writing conventions of Historians. You have a Ph.D. in History, and have written many books on USA History. I am only a layman with an interest in USA History, and British Commonwealth of Nations History. I am well acquainted with Academia (I myself have a Ph.D. in Chemistry), and very well schooled in Chemical nomenclature (i.e., the Classical Latin, and Ancient Greek terms).

Three points of Debate, regarding the "Great Britain" 1707 country article

(1). The Oxford Style Manual (for British English) should take precedence over the Chicago Manual of Style (for American English),

(2). It is well known that historians artifically impose lower-case capitalisation (e.g., Duke of Somerset written as duke of Somerset) to keep the number of capitals appearing a page down to a minimum,

(3). You do recall that engrosser boo-boo of the name of the united States of America happening right?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Armchair is correct. A review of the Act of Union does show that the nation is repeatedly refered to as the "United Kingdom" and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain", including in Article 3 "the United Kingdom of Great Britain to be Represented by one parliament, styled the Parliament of Great Britain." This shows the nation called UK of GB, and the parliament called GB. (Indeed, the only time GB is without UK nearby, in the Act, is when the document refers to Parliament.) Also, of significance is Article 24 "there be One Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain" 65.79.14.28 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In 1707, the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain was around, then after the War of Independence there was the Great Seal of the United States of America.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/27807.pdf

Interesting, isn't it. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may tentatively enter this historical debate, as someone who is now a lawyer, but formerly a professional historian. As noted, part of the problem is the tendency to capitalize Certain Important Nouns, more pronounced by 1706 in Scotland than England, but that may be set aside and instead by looking, as a lawyer, for the answer in what the 1706 Treaty and 1706/1707 Acts of Union say, when compared with the 1800 Acts of Union. The former (in that order, original emphasis) say "forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN " / "forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain " / "for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain " whereas the latter say (British version first, Irish second) "for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " / "for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,” ". So, the legal answer is to look at the bit of the law that named the new country, which was Article 1/Section 1 of the 1706/1707 Acts (and Article 1 of the Treaty), and Article First(s) of the 1800 Act(s). Comparative statutory interpretation says that the name of the kingdom before 1801 was Great Britain, and from 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, for the historical purposes of distinguishing the island from the state, the adoption of 'Kingdom of' seems sensible, though not legally accurate. Cripipper (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC);

You may be right, but that would be WP:OR. In fact this is an old thread and the article has been stable on this for the last year - but I think the consensus text is consistent with your analysis. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may, that is not what WP:OR says: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." A 12-year old without any specialist knowledge in statutory interpretation would be able to discern the answer to the straightforward descriptive question ("What is its name?") upon being shown the primary sources in question. Cripipper (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC);

"by looking, as a lawyer, for the answer..." "So, the legal answer is..." "Comparative statutory interpretation says...". You advertised your comments as WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with DeCausa. Interpreting these documents with 21st century narrow judicial eyes does not lead to a sensible conclusion here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

With respect Hebel, I don't think that is what DeCausa was saying at all. Furthermore, it is a question of law: what was the name of the new kingdom according to the laws that created it. It's not as if the language is archaic or difficult to understand "by the name of GREAT BRITAIN" - the Articles of Union had GB in the equivalent of caps and bold. And with respect to my comments about 'looking as a lawyer', it is not WP:OR to tell a group of people who are trying to find an answer to a question that they are looking in the wrong places and getting tied up in knots of irrelevance when, the answer is clear, discernible without need of interpretation, and permissible under WP:OR policy, if you just look in the right places to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. Cripipper (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that examining the primary source with the eyes of a 21st century lawyer will not lead to good results. That is exactly why a secondary source is needed and why interpreting the primary source “straightforward” can be OR. And that I agree with DeCause who has said (if I didn’t misinterpret him) something similar elsewhere on this page. I don’t think you will find a secondary source in which the country is described as being officially styled just “Great Britain”, however straightforward that may seem to you. But you may ofcourse try to find one. The said Kingdom has always been known diplomatically as the Kingdom of Great Britain simply because that was the way countries were styled in those days. The poor guy who wrote: "a Kingdom by the name of Great Britain", could (imho) not have been aware of the possibility that a country ruled by a monarch called "King of Great Britain" could be called anything else than Kingdom of Great Britain. Short form terms like just "Great Britain" simply weren't used in official diplomatic parlance at the time. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hebel is correct. Construing a statute, especially an 18th century statute is classic WP:OR. The point raised by Cripipper is not new & has been debated on this page for years. The text of the article is now stable. Absent a new secondary source on point, there's no reason to change the article. DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC) ps I'm a lawyer too DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening of the Lead

The statement that it is "less correct" to call it "Kingdom of Great Britain" is based on editors reading of primary sources. There is no secondary source to back it up. It is therefore WP:OR. Also, WP:MOS specifies that the article title appears in bold at the begining of the lead. I've made the changes to conform with both these points. DeCausa (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Call it Great Britain, or Kingdom of Great Britain, or United Kingdom of Great Britain. Oi. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If that's your view, why are you edit-warring to retain "Great Britain" in bold?. Please explain here and don't edt war. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello DeCausa. On what basis do you insert kingdom of Great Britain? Well? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I explained above why, but most obviously ... that is the name of the article. Also, the sources say so. Here are some examples from a constitutional law text, the UK Government, and a work by a historian: Prakke, L. (2004). Constitutional law of 15 EU member states. p. 866. ISBN 9789013012552. Retrieved 18 July 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), Home Office (2007). Life in the United Kingdom: a journey to citizenship. ISBN 9780113413171. Retrieved 18 July 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help),Dickinson (ed.), H.T. (2002). A companion to eighteenth-century Britain. p. 381. ISBN 978-0631218371. Retrieved 18 July 2011. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello DeCausa. The Oxford Style Manual (2003) clearly states that historians frequently impose lower case lettering on properly Upper Case names, in order to keep the occurance of Capitals to a minimum. For example, the Duke of Somerset is artificially written as the duke of Somerset, in this vein-of-thought. To sum up your notation kingdom of Great Britain should be Kingdom of Great Britain. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. That's not the reverts you were making. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa ... I changed "kingdom of Great Britain" to "kingdom of Great Britain" did I not? Well? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at your own post of 22:13. Can you not see the difference with what you've just said? DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa ... answer my question .... I changed "kingdom of Great Britain" to "kingdom of Great Britain" did I not? Well? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did, which contradicts your post of 22:13. DeCausa (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The legitimate bolded nomenclature is, Great Britain, or Kingdom of Great Britain, or United Kingdom of Great Britain. Your bolded text of kingdom of Great Britain is illegitmate. Oi. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Waste of time as usual with you. Change the k to K if you want. If you revert back to Great Britain you'll be at WP:AN/3. I'm done here. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply put your text "kingdom of Great Britain" is incorrect, and correct text is "kingdom of Great Britain. To re-emphasise if you convert Kingdom of Blah to kingdom of Blah, for it to be correct you then must de-bold the kingdom of Blah to kingdom of Blah. It is very interesting to see you DeCausa, not be able to admit that you are wrong. I guess you cover up your boo-boo's in court all the time eh. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that the only correct name was Great Britain, as specified in the Treaty of Union, and not "Kingdom of Great Britain", as agreed above with Fishiehelper2. In other cases (such as Kingdom of England, Kingdom of East Anglia) the words "Kingdom of" are a convenience which no one finds to be a problem. Perhaps the answer is to move this page to Great Britain (kingdom)? Moonraker (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever is the case, neither you or ArmChair should be edit warring. If something is an open question it is discussed here first. --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker, just to repeat the point: Basically it doesn't comply with the WP:MOS which says the article should open with the bolded title of the article. But also to assert without secondary sources (i.e. WP:Reliable sources) that "Great Britain" is correct and "Kingdom of Great Britain" is "less correct" is original research based on an interpretation of a primary source, the Acts of Union. I happen to think that interpretation is wrong. But that is irrelevant, it's still original research unless you can get secondary sources to support what you say. I can go into why I think your interpretation is wrong if you would like, but, as I say, that is irrelevant in the absence of secondary sources.DeCausa (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are arguing that you have to have 'Kingdom of Great Britain' bolded because the article should open with the bolded title of the article, then that is an argument for changing the title. If none of the other suggestion so far have worked, how about Great Britain (political union). Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. The article title is Kingdom of Great Britain. There's nothing wrong with it, it's fine per WP:COMMON NAME and that's what needs to be bolded. (If you mean small k v. capital K, that doesn't have a bearing: plenty of article titles with capital letter at beginning but the bolded lead is lower case). DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa the code that I typed in was this,

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

I inserted this ["The former kingdom of Great Britain, sometimes referred as "],

but it comes out this [The former kingdom of Great Britain, sometimes referred as ]

This should not be happening ... but it is. How is this computer code begin intercepted?

It should come out as [" ... the former kingdom of Great Britain, ..." ]

What is wrong with that? I am sincerely asking. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have taken out the link to Great Britain, because that suggests the historical kingdom covered the same area as the island, which it didn't. I see no problem with "the former kingdom of Great Britain", but I do find the notion of bolding only "United Kingdom of Great Britain" highly misleading, so I have added "One Kingdom", which has just as much credibility as a mistaken name. The state of Great Britain was never called the United Kingdom, and decent contemporary historians do not call it that, either. It was referred to in various Acts and treaties as "One Kingdom", but only because of the same Augustan approach to capital letters which creates the confusion over "United Kingdom". If one such notion is to be in the lead, we might as well have them all. Moonraker (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"kingdom of" should be bolded as well because that is the name of the article, as well as being the common name of the state. No need to repeat Kingdom of GB twice, so taken out the second one. DeCausa (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To Moonraker you wrote the following,

"... I have taken out the link to Great Britain, because that suggests the historical kingdom covered the same area as the island, which it didn't. ..."

Ummmm ... what? The Island of Great Britain contains the land area of the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, and the Kingdom of Scotland. The land area of those Country Units is equal to the land area of the Island of Great Britain is it not? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see Moonraker's point: the state of Great Britain covered more than the island of Great Britain as it also included islands round the coast. However, he is wrong when he says that Great Britain was never called the United Kingdom: eg section 6 of Act of Union says "THAT all parts of the United Kingdom for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Drawbacks, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and lyable to the same Customs and Duties on Import and Export" Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what we mean by "called". Great Britain was the name of the country, plainly specified as such in the 1707 treaty and the English and Scottish legislation, and that was invariably used whenever a formal name was needed, for instance in an act of parliament or in a declaration of war. The country was also described or referred to in various ways, for instance as "One Kingdom" and as "United Kingdom", but those were not the name. Clearly, the Water is muddied by the Contemporary Approach to the Use of Capital Letters. Moonraker (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking it back to the secondary sources (rather than trying to interpret primary sources contrary to WP:OR) I think the Bamber Gascoigne website source, now in the article, has it right. Prior to the 1800 Acts of Union, "united kingdom" was informally used in the 18th century but only became "official" with the 1800 Acts of Union. I note that Spiritofstgeorge actually found that source and put it in the article. Well done on that because it's the first time in this long Wikipedia discussion that someone's actually come up with a secondary source that's specifically on point (rather than pointing to a secondary source that simply does or does not use the "United Kingdom" term for the pre-1801 period). DeCausa (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That online article at historyworld.net is hardly a reliable source, DeCausa, although we can probably all agree that it is approaching the truth of the matter. Bamber Gascoigne asserts that "Historically 'united kingdom' begins life in informal use during the 18th century to describe the newly combined nation of England and Scotland." That is not exactly wrong, as it correctly uses 'united kingdom' in lower case letters (that is, as a description and not as a name), although no instances of "informal use" are offered, as this is an article without notes, and probably BG was simply picking the idea up from an unidentified source - conceivably it might even have been Wikipedia! He goes on to add "It becomes official in 1800...", and there is a certain amount of muddle in the notion that an informal description "becomes official". In 1800 the very occasional description of 'united kingdom' became a proper noun and took on capital letters, according to our present day usage, as part of our country's official name. That was not a minor change, as BG seems to infer, but a dramatic one. Moonraker (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I still support a move to Great Britain (kingdom), as above. The intro would read: "Great Britain, also described as the Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a kingdom..." — JonC^ॐ 16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Name of article should be changed

This is wrong. The name of the state created in 1707 was 'Great Britain'. It says so clearly in the Treaty of Union and the SActs of Union that ratified the treaty. The name 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is not correct - indeed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain is equally valid, since both 'kingdom' and 'united kingdom' are descriptions of the state. I propose that the name of this article be changed to 'Great Britain (historical state)' as suggested above. Wogsalg88 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Third party sources please - I suspect you know that ----Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with Wogsalg88 that this article should be renamed and also for the reasons stated. A quick search has revealed article from the Telegraph under the title The creation of Great Britain - not The creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. His/her changes were premature but he/she has a point. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct or not, convention across many articles (Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of France, etc.) is for "Kingdom of ..." constructions. Additionally, "Great Britain" requires disambiguation from Great Britain.

The current title fits the criteria for article titles. It is recognisable, natural, precise, consise, and consistent. There is (and I know this is annoying for some) no requirement for a title of an article to be correct. --RA (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well we will have to disagree on this. I'd be interested in the views of other editors to see if they share your view on this matter. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2013

Per RA except lots of arguments/sources in support of "correctness" of the current title. But we don't have to go there because of WP:cOMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The common name of the state created in 1707 is 'Great Britain' - not 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of the secession of Southern Ireland from the United Kingdom

Hi Robynthehode. Currently, I believe it is debated as to whether the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain or whether it is a successor state and that articles regarding this should allow the reader to make that decision. Including the succession of Southern Ireland suggests that the United Kingdom is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. As this isn't very relevant, to avoid confrontation I do not think it should be included. Regards, Rob (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this reference being irrelevant, but for a different reason. This article covers an 18th-century territorial entity, and areas under its control or influence. Political events in the 20th century have precious little to do with. To me, it is the equivalent of discussing the birth of Vichy France in an article focusing on the French First Republic. Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick thanks for the above but you have missed the point. The point of contention is merely the inclusion of the last paragraph (or part of it) in the introduction. Namely "On 1 January 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland united to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most of Ireland left the union as the Irish Free State in 1922, leading to the state being renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927." This is not discussing 'misplaced' territorial entities but merely referring to them so users of Wikipedia can link to very relevant articles about the history of the UK. See below for my reply to Rob.

Hi Rob

Thanks for your information on the talk page. I can see your point about it being contentious. However I still think the information should be there with links but maybe the wording can be changed to make the contentious nature of the change clear (but succinct). Leaving the links allows users to follow to other articles for more information rather than limiting a user's options to learn about the difficult history between Ireland and England and the UK

Robynthehode (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Would this suffice; 'In 1922 the Irish Free State succeeded the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, leading to the state being renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.'? Regards, Rob (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Rob (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Great Britain (disambiguation) merge proposal

I'm proposing merging Great Britain (disambiguation) to Britain. See Talk:Britain#Merger proposal. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I've reverted this change to the opening sentence. The wording "...in north-west Europe" has been unchallenged since this edit in 2008, before which it was "...in western Europe". The change to "...off the coast of continental Europe" is identical to changes that User:WheelerRob has been seeking to make across a swathe of articles in recent days, and stems from the wording at United Kingdom. There has been discussion at that article's talk page, without agreement, but there may need to be further discussion here as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Flag

1:2

3:5

Which Flag should be displayed? I believe the first is commonly used today however I'm not sure if it was used pre-1801 and I can find a source. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Common and Official name

Although I am aware that this has been discussed many times, I'm not sure anyone has analysed the actually Articles of Union with Scotland, 1707. This shows the term 'Great Britain' in bold, whereas the term 'kingdom' and 'United kingdom' in standard text. Although I understand that the common name for the state, today at-least is the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', the transcript clearly shows that 'Great Britain' is the official name. As with most articles, the title is the common name, with the official name starting the opening sentence, and mentioning that the state is commonly known as the common name. Thus, shouldn't the opening sentence be; 'Great Britain, commonly known as the Kingdom of Great Britain and also referred to as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a sovereign state in northwest Europe that existed from 1707 to 1801.' Also the info-box would be changed to the official name as with other articles. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Practice appears to be to introduce these articles as Kingdom of ... For example, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, etc. --RA (✍) 21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Those articles do not appear to have evidence for an official name without the prefix. A better comparison would the Republic of Ireland article. There is also a difference between the 'kingdom of Great Britain' and the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really put too much stock into the use of capitalisation. Style and convention for capitalisation change over time. For example, in the Irish version of the 1801 act of union "united kingdom" was not capitalised but in the Great Britain version it is ("United Kingdom"). Nevertheless, in the Irish version the name is explicitly given (though use of quotes) as "the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". --RA (✍) 21:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not the Great Britain of 1707 to 1800, it is the new state created in 1801 which included Ireland. I confess that I am very sympathetic to Rob's point of view. "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain" means that the name was "Great Britain", and the 18th century state was almost never referred to as anything else. The page name has probably settled down at "Kingdom of Great Britain" to distinguish the state from the island of Great Britain, but it was not and is not the common name of the state. Moonraker (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I know they were different kingdoms, Moonraker dear. What I wrote was, "Style and convention for capitalisation change over time. For example, ..." Similar, discrepancies can be seen between the Scottish and English acts of 1707 - and the kingdom is referred as both the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Kingdom of Great Britain" in those acts. --RA (✍) 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The capitalisation suggests that 'Kingdom of' is part of the title whereas without, 'kingdom of' is just stating Great Britain is a kingdom. The term 'State of Great Britain' is incorrect as it suggests the 'State of' is part of the title whereas the term 'state of Great Britain' is correct as it's just stating that Great Britain is a state.

Regardless of style and convention for capitalisation changing over time, the term 'Great Britain' is shown in bold, and the wording also suggests that 'Great Britain' is the official name of the state. Regards, Rob (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"The capitalisation suggests that 'Kingdom of' is part of the title..." Well, if so, the K of Kingdom is capitalised in the acts of union.

Look, I also have sympathy for your argument. My concern is that the same argument is true across lots of articles. I wouldn't mind a wider discussion posted to all these "Kingdom of..." articles as opposed to just going it alone on this article. Would you be up for that? Inviting a wider discussion? --RA (✍) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you, 'Great Britain' is not a common name for the state and 'England' is not a common name for the Kingdom of England thus shouldn't be included unless there is some other reason. Usually official names that are not common are also listed and as my source clearly shows 'Great Britain' is the official name, it should be included, as with the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland articles. I'm not aware of any source that suggests that 'England' is the official name of the Kingdom of England, and although I am sure it is, you would need a source to prove it. Regards, Rob (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Another example is Canada, its official name is 'Canada' even though it is a kingdom and thus isn't titled the Kingdom of Canada. I'm not suggesting that we should rename the page, the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is the most common name, however if the official name is 'Great Britain' then it should definitely be listed, as with other articles such as the United Kingdom, where an uncommon, but official name is listed. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You began this thread with "Although I am aware that this has been discussed many times, I'm not sure anyone has analysed the actually Articles of Union with Scotland, 1707." But, if you look in the archive this was exactly what was discussed a length before. The problem with your analysis of a primary source is that you've drawn an anachronistic conclusion. You would need a secondary source to make the assertion that "Great Britain" was the "official name" and "Kingdom of Great Britain" was not the official name (i.e. both parts of the assertion). This has been discussed multiple times, and no one has ever been able to do that. So the first problem is that this claim amounts to WP:OR. But the other issue is that the Treaty and Acts can not be taken as defining a full "official" name in the modern sense. If you look around the states of Europe in 1707, you will not find many "official" names that define both the geographical entity and its constitutional status, except for some of the Republics, because the ruler's title was usually defined in that way, not the state. The "Kingdom of England" was not "officially" defined. The style "King of England" was, and it followed that because England had a king, it was the "Kingdom of England". The thinking in 1707 for Great Britain was the same. It was during the course of the 18th century official names for the state rather than the ruler became the thing. But applying a modern concept of the full state name of constitional status plus geographical entity is misleading and anachronistic, but above all is based on WP:OR of a primary source. DeCausa (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying that there were no official names for states before the late 18th century? I would assume that the official name of the state, is however it is referred to in official usage. I don't see how the fact that states at the time weren't officially named with there constitutional status is even relevant. Many states today aren't officially named with there constitutional status.

There are numerous sources that show that "Great Britain" is the term used to refer the the state in official usage:

Note: Bold represents any alternative formatting

These sources show that "Kingdom of Great Britain" is not the official name of the state and suggest that "Great Britain" is the official name. The state is referred to as "...kingdom of Great Britain..." and "Kingdom of Great Britain", but never as "Kingdom of Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Great Britain".

This source and this source, collections of acts and treaties regarding the state, show the state being referred to as "Great Britain" almost exclusively, and occasionally as "Kingdom of Great Britain", but never as "Kingdom of Great Britain".

This source, a piece of formal writing about the political state of Great Britain, again refers to the state almost exclusively as "Great Britain" and occasionally as "Kingdom of Great Britain", but never as "Kingdom of Great Britain".

The parliament of this state, was officially called the "Parliament of Great Britain", not the "Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain", whereas the parliament of the United Kingdom is officially called the "Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", not the "Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". This again suggests "Great Britain" was the name of the state, as why would the same political entity include its official name's prefix, if it didn't do the same with it's legal predecessors official name's prefix? Probably because it didn't have a prefix in its official name.

I agree that the title of the head of state was more significant in describing the state and its entities however again, I don't see how that affects what the official name of the state was.

Rob (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a secondary source that states, in terms, that the state founded in 1707 was not called the Kingdom of Great Britain, but simply Great Britain. I don't believe you can. Instead, you are using primary sources to draw a novel conclusion: that the "official" name of the state did not include the words "Kingdom of" in spite of modern secondary history and constitutional law sources regularly stating that the "Kingdom of Great Britain was founded in 1707"...etc. This use of primary sources (i.e. the sources you allude to above) goes beyond what is sanctioned by WP:PRIMARY which states that primary sources should be used with care because "it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Your use of the primary sources is faulty here for the following reasons:

• firstly, you heavily rely on your interpretation of the orthography (capitals, italics, bolding etc) to make distinctions as to use of the phrase "kingdom of" and "Great Britain". But 18th century orthography was not the same orthography as we use today and was very inconsistent in use and the underlying meaning the orthography implies. There's no way that interpreting orthography in this way can be done properly "without further, specialized knowledge".

• Secondly, you've assumed that the bare statement in the Acts/Treaty that the name of the state is to be "Great Britain", without "Kingdom of", was meaningful and, in fact, means that it is different from the other kingdoms extant at the time and that the phrase "Kingdom of Great Britain" somehow therefore has a less "official status". The point I was making in my earlier post was that you have jumped to the conclusion that states at that time officially declared themselves to be "the Kingdom of" X or "the Kingdom of" Y in a way that modern states do, particularly in their constitutions. But they didn't. So, no particular conclusions should be drawn from how the "Kingdom" part of the name is treated in the Acts/Treaty.

Now, you could disagree with me on both those two points (which of course is perfectly reasonable/legitimate for you to do), but what it illustrates is that there is not an uncontested straightforward clear interpretation of the primary sources you have used: you need secondary sources to assert the interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom state link

In the Great Britain Infobox's next state field, should not link to the article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and not directly to United Kingdom) ? The normal order should be: Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800) -> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922) -> United Kingdom I changed it, but my changes were reverted. --Living001 (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom article covers the sovereign state that has existed since 1801. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article simply covers the history of the United Kingdom while the whole of Ireland was part of the state. I think it makes more sense to link sovereign states to sovereign states then to historical periods. Rob (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually your edit User:Living001 was correct. WheelerRob is acting against consensus. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hi Dimadick. Since you are restoring the status quo, I can't revert your edit again. In your statement, 'I disagree with you, Tóraí, DeCausa, and . Scolaire disagree with you' you claim many other editors agree with you also. To be clear I edited the introduction in order to clarify the political status of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, that it was the name for the United Kingdom before 1927.
The status quo:

• "On 1 January 1801, the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 the Irish Free State succeeded the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, leading to the state being renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

My edit:

• "On 1 January 1801, the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland merged to form the United Kingdom, which was formally named the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' until the partition of Ireland in 1922, in which thirty-two of the counties of Ireland seceded, and the state was renamed the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'."

The status quo currently suggests that the United Kingdom article covers a state that existed since 1927, which is incorrect. The United Kingdom has existed since 1801, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927. To pipe 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' for United Kingdom in contrast to 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' is wrong, as the United Kingdom article covers the state with both names. Rob (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I for one do agree with Dimadick in this. Your edits to all of these articles are all of the same kind, and you are fully aware that nobody is in agreement with what you are doing. I am asking you now in a third forum to stop these disruptive edits. Scolaire (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of these edits are unrelated (what does the name of the Kingdom of Great Britain have to do with the UKGBI?). What exactly do you disagree with? The fact that the UKGBI and the UKGBNI are both the UK, the same sovereign state, and they simply refer to the state with alternative formal names in correspondence to a change in its territory? If so, why is this made clear at UKGBI? Or is it something else you disagree with? Rob (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy. I often think if there was as much energy put into these anal terminology disputes that WP specialises in as there was in creating real content Wikipedia would be a stunning resource. FWIW, my view is that both Rob's version and the other version are correct. Rob's version is clunky and unattractive so I prefer the other version. But for chrisakes does it really matter? Robe, most people seem to prefer the other version, it's not stating anything inaccurate so move on. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is inaccurate. The UK article does not cover the UK after 1922, so to phrase it like that (with those links) is wrong. It should at-least be linked like this:

• "On 1 January 1801, the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 the Irish Free State succeeded the United Kingdom, leading to the state being renamed the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'."

And once it has been linked like that, in my opinion, it makes more sense to phrase it like I proposed.

Rob (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It makes more sense to accept that nobody agrees with your edits and move on. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:CON. 'A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised'. Unless you can dismiss my reasoning, which you so far haven't done at any of these discussions, you don't have consensus. Rob (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand get a life. I'm sorry. I know, no personal attacks and all that. But seriously. Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. Good to know you don't have any issues with my proposed edit. Rob (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire and Dimadick, I've went ahead and made an edit, simply fixing a clear inaccuracy. Normally this would be a minor edit, but you two are making the big deal out of it. You are arguing for the sake of it, the UK has clearly existed since 1801, and if you honestly think otherwise, you need to provide a source to suggest a new state was created in 1922/7 as it is original research, and therefore is invalid reasoning as per WP:NOR. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Italics in lead

Why? Utterly trivial, but it just looks messy and scrappy, and was a recent change. Nor do I see how WP:WORDSASWORDS applies, unless it applies every time we say something is known by Term X. N-HH talk/edits 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. Every use of a "term" in the lead should be italicised then? There's no style guide in the world, even on WP, that requires italicisation in this fashion, nor was this term italicised until the other day. Please can people stop making this scrappy change and then, even more ridiculously, edit warring over it? N-HH talk/edits 23:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apologies, Rob (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's illiterate not to mark it with quotes or italics (Use-mention distinction). But there again, literacy is usually considered "trivial" on WP. ("Nor do I see how WP:WORDSASWORDS applies, unless it applies every time we say something is known by Term X."!!!) DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the least bit illiterate to leave the phrase here in non-Italic text. It's not clear that we have a use-mention distinction here at all and, even if we did, italics are neither obligatory or common (in most writing, if a signifier was needed, quote marks would be employed). I haven't the faintest idea what your point is in quoting one of my sentences, preceding it with another pithy comment about "literacy" and following it with three exclamation marks. N-HH talk/edits 11:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't suppose you do: just as, to you, "it's not clear that we have a use-mention distinction here". DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have a point that someone else has explained they do not understand, you could always clarify it, especially if your only way of expressing it in the first place was quite as simultaneously childish and abstruse as it was. Just as you could accept that someone can disagree with what happens to be your personal and subjective interpretation of particular text and context. Or you could always just desist from being an arse and leaving pithy notes to other editors. Jesus. It's not really what talk pages are for. N-HH talk/edits 23:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The phrase isn't being used, it's being mentioned. However, evidently, on Wikipedia, italics or quotations are not obligatory. Whether its illiterate is irrelevant here. Rob (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

User:N-HH, I was responding to you being arse in your opening posts to this thread. Shall we leave our arses at the door next time? DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way was I doing that? Where did I quote someone's words back at them with exclamation marks after them? Where did I twice over appear to accuse another editor (incorrectly) of illiteracy in their talk page posts? I opened a talk page thread to query an edit, and ask for an end to an incipient edit war, and for an explanation of the edit, while actually admitting that my point was ultimately a trivial one. When the only response to that post was the edit warring continuing, I expressed exasperation and asked people to stop. As for the point at hand, the term is not coming up as part of a technical discussion or meta-debate about terminology or usage, it is simply a brief observation in the lead that the name of the state changed from A to B. That is no different from saying "Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali" or "John and Mary named their daughter Rose" or "France, officially the Republic of France". As I said, I don't know of a source that would italicise in those contexts and WP rules don't require us to switch to them either. N-HH talk/edits 12:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

...by the name of Great Britain

The states official name was "Great Britain":

"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon 1 May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN", Union with Scotland Act 1706 (1706)

"After the political union of England and Scotland in 1707, the nation's official name became 'Great Britain'", The American Pageant, Volume 1, Cengage Learning (2012)

"From 1707 until 1801 Great Britain was the official designation of the kingdoms of England and Scotland". The Standard Reference Work: For the Home, School and Library, Volume 3, Harold Melvin Stanford (1921)

"In 1707, on the union with Scotland, 'Great Britain' became the official name of the British Kingdom, and so continued until the union with Ireland in 1801". United States Congressional serial set, Issue 10; Issue 3265 (1895)

"Kingdom of" is used for disambiguation purposes. It's not necessary in the lead.
Rob984 (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

""All our subjects in this our isle and kingdom of Great Britain and the members thereof, shall bear in their main top the red cross commonly called St George's Cross and the white cross commonly called St. Andrew's Cross joined together according to a form made by our heralds and sent to our Admiral to be published to our said subjects." - 12 April 1606 in a proclamation by King James VI of Scotland

"II That the succession to the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, after Her Most Sacred Majesty, and in default of issue of Her Majesty..." - Section 2 of the Act of Union 1707.

"III That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain." - Section 3 of the Act of Union 1707.

"IV That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full freedom and intercourse of trade and navigation, to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom, and the dominions and plantations thereunto belonging, and that there be a communication of all other rights, privileges, and advantages which do or may belong to the subjects of either kingdom, except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these articles." - Section 4 of the Act of Union 1707.

"XXIV That, from and after the Union, there be one Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either kingdom; and that the quartering the arms and the rank and precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the kingdom of Scotland, as may best suit the Union, be left to her Majesty; anti that, in the meantime, the Great Seal of England be used as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, and that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom be used for sealing writs to elect and summon the Parliament of Great Britain, and for sealing all treaties with foreign princes and states, and all public acts, instruments, and orders of state which concern the whole United Kingdom, and in all other matters relating to England, as the Great Seal of England is now used; and that a seal in Scotland, after the Union, be always kept, and made use of in all things relating to private rights or grants, which have usually passed." - Section 24 of the Act of Union 1707.

Get Consensus, Don't re-write history. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-write history? I provided a number of secondary sources. From a primary source, you have established that the state was referred to as "Kingdom of Great Britain". Wonderful. It's also referred to as "United Kingdom of Great Britain". You haven't provided a secondary source that claims its name was "Kingdom of Great Britain". Further more, the sources I've provided state its official name was "Great Britain". Can you provide a source that claims it's official name was "Kingdom of Great Britain"? The official name should go in the infobox. See Republic of Ireland for example. Rob984 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You get a more primary source then the Act of Union 1707. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What? I provided one primary source, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, and 3 secondary sources. The information I derived from those sources was directly implied by the source. All you have done is provided one primary source, and stated your interpretation of information within that source. Please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTHESIS. Rob984 (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it easier to go straight to the horses mouth. From what I can tell, your claiming the country was not a kingdom? You'll still need consensus to make the major changes. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. Are you claiming Canada is not a kingdom? Not sure why you would object to adding reliably sourced content. Rob984 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's also original research to suggest that "Kingdom of Great Britain" was the official name of the state, as is suggested by it's placement in the infobox. Wikipedia should not contain original research. Rob984 (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Rob, you never responded to my post of 21 October 2013 in the thread "Common and Official name" 7 threads above. Feels like Groundhog day. DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't reply because you were right, I didn't have any secondary sources. Not sure why I waited a year. I guess this is my response to your post. Rob984 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kingdom of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131206130433/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/visitingHolyrood/union_exhibition.pdf to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/visitingHolyrood/union_exhibition.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate hack

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—46.99.142.35 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates of London as they appear in the article. If you think they are erroneous (though they don't appear to be), please add a clear explanation below and remove the "tlc|" from the {{geodata-check}} template above. Deor (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kingdom of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721181249/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/history/SPTradition/treaty.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/history/SPTradition/treaty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102060414/http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/unionofparliaments/index.asp to http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/unionofparliaments/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

British POV only

Current article has British POV. For example, the article mentions this as the largest empire (an attempt to glorify the positive aspect, which is true, but only the "half facts"), while conveniently omitting more important aspect of being the "largest exploitative and oppressive empire". Article should be made comprehesive to cover all the "major aspects" with all sides of the facts, not just positive or neutral facts. In an encyclopedia article, this should be captured upfront and the rest of the article should capture "full facts" in a condesensed unbiased manner without the concealment or omission. I only edited one sentence in the beginning. For which, I have provided numerous references within the edit. Rest of the article needs to be cleaned up as well. Let us continue to watch this article, including edits and the "reverts" of legit unpleasant references-backed facts representing full facts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E61E:452:89E8:E49D:FE8B:6391 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The main place to discuss the British Empire is the British Empire article. I support User:Jon C.'s deletion of your recent edit, which was unbalanced. However, I do not oppose covering these issues in this article. We could expand the Mercantilism section to discuss imperial exploitation, and add a section on slavery, linking to History of slavery and/or Slavery in the British and French Caribbean. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Mass reversion

In this edit Rob984 reverted multiple edits my multiple editors with the edit summary Not a single contructive edit. This summary seems arrogant and dismissive of the honest contributions of other editors. The following edits appear to me to be constructive.

• It makes sense for the title of the infobox to match the title of the article.
• If we use this infobox title, then the translations into Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Scottish Gaelic should translate this title.

The mass reversion has undone various other changes which may or may not be desirable. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's really not a mass revert. Most of the intermintant edits were reverted by bots. I probably reverted three or four edits made in the last 20 days which all were part of a single move to obscure the fact that the official name was "Great Britain". This goes agaist the cited reliable sources. The infobox should include the official name of the state, not the article title, per conventional ussage. Regardless, this change does not have consensus. Rob984 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I also redid one unrelated edit that I don't have a problem with. Rob984 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Also changing the parameter region from "British Isles" to "The British Isles" would simply break catagorisation. Think that covers everything. Rob984 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of the edits involved falsifing cited quotes, which I imagine qualifies as vandalism, or at least disputive editing. But I apologies for the arrogant comment in the edit summary. Rob984 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting this. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515023116/http://www.history.org.uk/resources/he_resource_730_9.html to http://www.history.org.uk/resources/he_resource_730_9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Contrafactual assertion removed

I have removed the sentence "King George I was primarily interested in ruling his native Hanover, where he spent most of his time" as it appears to be complete guff. As the ODNB has it "In total George I spent about two and three-quarter years of his thirteen-year reign in Hanover, or at any rate out of Britain." We all need to be on the look out for such falsifications. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"Historians refer to it as Great Britain"

To what does this sentence refer? I am assuming that it means, historians refer to Kingdom of Great Britain (the subject of the article) as Great Britain but its position in the lead, immediately following, "In 1922, five-sixths of Ireland seceded and the state was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – a title it has retained to date", also implies that historians refer to the UK as Great Britain. If it means the former, and given what is later said in the etymology section, I think it probably does, surely it is redundant as the first sentence reads, "The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially Great Britain". If it means the latter, this ought to be discussed and referenced in the main body. I propose removing the statement from the lead because it is ambiguous, possibly redundant and that sort of minutiae doesn't belong there. Thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Same country as today?

Is the Kingdom of Great Britain the same country as the modern-day United Kingdom? For the longest time, Wikipedia gave the misleading impression that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UKGBI) was a former country. I just want to make sure the same thing is not happening here. The secession of part of a country does not automatically mean the country ceases to exist. For example, the Irish Free State separated from the UKGBI in 1922, but that did not cause the UK to stop existing. Sure, it changed its name to reflect the loss of territory (to the current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). But it's not a new country (i.e. an entirely new successor state) - it's the same country, just with less territory. A country changing its name or borders does not necessarily make it a new country (and that's where a lot of confusion comes from).

Since the U.S. was founded in 1776, there have been 50 states added to it. But of course, we don't say there's been 50 different countries across its history; it's the same country just with more territory, and with the federal government based in Washington DC the entire time. Is it the same situation here (with Great Britain and its Westminster-based government expanding its territory)? In other words: Is the UKGBI an entirely new successor state to the Kingdom of Great Britain? Or is the UKGBI the same country as the Kingdom of Great Britain but with more territory and a new name to reflect that? If the latter is true, the article should not begin with "...Great Britain was a sovereign state" but with "Great Britain was established on 1 May 1707".

I may be wrong (and correct me if I am), but the impression I get is that the Acts of Union 1800 did not cause the Kingdom of Great Britain to cease existing (i.e. become abolished or dissolved) but rather absorbed (i.e. continue as the same country) into a new union. Spellcast (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, after researching this a bit, perhaps Great Britain did indeed cease to exist in 1801. From this source (which seems to be a quote by judge Edward Pennefather in a court case):

By that article [Article I of the Acts of Union 1800], from the passing of the act of union, the kingdom of Great Britain ceased to exist, the kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist, and instead of those two, there was formed one united kingdom under the style and title of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.' Not one king thenceforth having two kingdoms under his dominion, but from thenceforth one king having one kingdom designated as in that article; and the idea of saying that the Queen of Ireland may be treated or dealt with as the Queen of a separate kingdom is absurd, is seditious.

Bloody hell, it's so easy to get caught up in semantics. So it seems to me that what happened in 1801 was the incorporation of Great Britain and Ireland into a single entity (the United Kingdom), not the joining of Ireland onto the pre-exisiting Great Britain - a nuanced difference which one can easily get confused by. So unlike the UKGBI, the Kingdom of Great Britain is not the same country as the modern-day UK. Spellcast (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This needs attention from an expert on state succession in international law. Wikiain (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• It seems Spellcast you are conflating the modern term country with the legal definition of the Crown in this case. The Crown never ceases to exist throughout history (until it is abolished by the law, of course). However, Crown posessions grow and diminish throughout history, as well as change their status. For example, according to the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 the Irish Free State in the status of a dominion (i.e. NOT part of the United Kingdom) was formed, at first, on the whole Island of Ireland on 6 December 1922 (yes, according to this Act the NI could secede within the so-called 'Ulster Month', and did duly so on the next day, reverting its territorial status to one of the Home rule). The outcome of Brexit will ultimately reveal the extent of sovereignty of the British Crown in NI.CitoyenU (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain versus Kingdom of Great Britain

The long-form Name of United Kingdom of Great Britain versus Kingdom of Great Britain "debate" here at Wikipedia is a manufactured one. Some members here assert that the Royal Proclamations from A.D. 1707-1800 should be read as "... this Kingdom of Great Britain..." when they really should be read as "... this Kingdom of Great Britain...". Simply put the Feudal Rank is a Kingdom, the long-form Name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the short-form Name is Great Britain.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

From memory, the debate was over "United" - was it "united Kingdom of Great Britain" (i.e. "united" purely as an adjective) or "United Kingdom of Great Britain" (i.e. "United" as part of the name). I don't think there was ever any debate over "Britain" vs. "Great Britain". TFOWR 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My reading is that united at this time is an adjective. Its not the most important issue in the world but it needs to be discussed and agreed here. --Snowded ^TALK 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know either way - it was always "Kingdom of Great Britain" when I was at university but that was a couple of decades ago now (and in the interim it turns out that several terms we were taught have now been deprecated). What I do know is that this isn't clear cut: Google hits aren't perfect, and I'm not suggesting we use them as a final arbiter, but kingdom of great britain returns 24,000 and united kingdom of great britain returns 18,000 - to my mind that's too close to say one is more common than the other. I agree that it needs discussed: far too many reverts. TFOWR 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to find an 18th century use of "United Kingdom" as the name of a British state. As stated by William E. Burns in A Brief History of Great Britain, the term 'United Kingdom' came into the language with the Act of Union 1800, when it was intended to emphasize Union with Ireland. (See here.) And as pointed out by the Historical Association in The Times in 2006, "The United Kingdom did not come into being until 1800, with the Act of Union with Ireland." (See here.) Please do not remove either of these references from the article. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. If you read the actual Treaty of Union, you will discover that the phrase 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' was used all through the treaty. The Scottish Act of Union continued in like manner, though the English treaty of Union didn't. I'll post some examples if it is helpful. Anyway, the fact that both the UK parliament and the Scottish parliament both accept the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' interpretation (as proved by the references) must be significant. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I note what the Historical Association says, but as I'm sure you recognise, that is only one interpretation, and other historical associations have a different interpretation. I'll get some references for that as well. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That really doesn't reply to what I asked. Would you please see if you can find any contemporary use outside the Treaty of Union, which specifically (at Article 1) names the country as "Great Britain"? You deleted my references from the article, which is most unhelpful. I shall need to restore. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the Scottish Act of Union not count as 'contemporary use outside the Treaty of Union'? I agree that the name of the country was 'Great Britain', but it is also clear that it was referred to as the 'United Kingdom' of Great Britain, and that the term United Kingdom was in use prior to the union with Ireland - indeed, it may be that this fact was then recognised in the decision to call the new state 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' rather than merely 'The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from [2] "The most important consideration in the making of the United Kingdom in 1707 was the standpoint of England." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am unimpressed by a bbc.co.uk web page. A web site can be found to argue almost any position on any historical question. I am asking about reliable sources, whether primary or secondary ones. If you read any highly regarded history (such as the Cambridge Modern History vol. VI, The Eighteenth Century), you will find that Great Britain before 1801 is always referred to as Great Britain or Britain, never as the "United Kingdom". That is because historians work from original and reliable sources, and the term "United Kingdom" was not used. I am afraid you and others are in denial. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moonraker2, I accept completely that Great Britain before 1801 is usually referred to as Great Britain or Britain, but my disagreement is with your opinion that the term United Kingdom was never used prior to 1801. Your suggestion that the term United Kingdom was only used for the period from 1707 to 1800 after the period had passed ignored the Scottish Act of Union that was passed by the parliament of Scotland to ratify the Treaty of Union. I only quoted the bbc.co.uk page to counter your quote reported in the times. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Union with England Act - I. That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land [3] - please note the bit "..of the said United Kingdom..." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. It's not about what it was called then, but in fact what the entity that existed then is called now. Some people nowadays (but ahistorically) call it the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain'. That is pretty clear. As such, that name should be mentioned.

At the same time, the point Fishiehelper2 raises, quoting the Act of Union, does nothing to prove that the term 'United Kingdom' was used. To prove that it was used, it has to be used independently of the term 'Kingdom of Great Britain', in the same way as 'United Kingdom' nowadays can unambiguously be used to describe the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Otherwise, it cannot be shown that it has a separate existence as terminology. Bastin 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bastin, I mainly agree with what you say, though I thought I had indeed shown by quoting from the Scottish Act of Union that the term United Kingdom was used to describe the new 'entity'. In particular, I quoted "..and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint.." where the said United Kingdom was referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain. they could have said ".. and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said Great Britain be such as Her Majesty shall appoint..", but they chose to refer to Great Britain as 'the said United Kingdom'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2, the note you left on my Talk page suggests you can't find an online text for this. See here the text of the Scottish Act of Union, which does indeed refer repeatedly to a "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and a "United Kingdom", but that didn't make either the name of the country, as the Acts provide clearly for the name to be "Great Britain", and as a matter of fact the new entity did not call itself "United Kingdom". The same Act also says "...that all Papists and persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded from and forever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain". No one could rely on that as good evidence that the Crown was to be called (or ever was called) "the Imperial Crown of Great Britain", which it wasn't. As John Adams wrote in 1774, "This language 'the imperial crown of Great Britain,' is not the style of the common law but of court sycophants..."

It will be helpful for all of these matters to be explained objectively at Wikipedia, but where I become very uneasy is when users here begin to fight to change the name of a historical reality retrospectively. It may seem innocent, but it is almost invariably motivated by political purposes. Names are critically important. Indeed, Walt Whitman said on geography that "Names are Magic". Moonraker2 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moonraker2, I did leave a message on your talk page as I didn't want you to think I was in any way acting in bad faith - I apologise for not following it up. I am please that you recognise that the act states that the state is referred to in the Scottish Act of Union as "the United Kingdom" - (not 'a' United Kingdom). This was all I was trying to show as you had suggested that the term 'United Kingdom' was not used until the union with Ireland. I agree with you 100% that we must not allow articles to be changed for political reasons. I would suggest that I am not trying to change anything - for example, I am perfectly happy for the article to continue to be called 'Kingdom of Great Britain' as a way of distinguishing the article from the Great Britain article that describes the island - but I am wary of those who may wish to marginalise the view that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707. I also agree with Bastin that we must also pay due attention to the fact that very significant sources today also seem to interpret from the historical documents that it is perfectly valid to suggest that the United Kingdom began in 1707 with the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Let us not too quickly dismiss the 'official' interpretation of the Acts of Union as described on both the Scottish parliament and UK parliament websites. Cheers for now (I'm off to bed!) Fishiehelper2 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The same discussion has taken place at Talk:British_people#Kingdom_of_Great_Britain. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that a discussion about the name has already taken place - I was off to start one! I improved the article, as I say it, and today had my edit undone by Moonraker2. He didn't explain his undoing of my edit so I was going to explain it here. I now realise I should have read the talk page before I made my first edit! Anyway, I don't mind that the convention has developed of calling the state formed in 1707 the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' but that is merely a convention. 'United Kingdom of Great Britain', as has been said above, was the phrase used repeatedly in the treaty of Union. Therefore, this phrase desrves greater prominence than Mookraker2's version gives. My version makes clear that 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is how it is commonly described - what is so wrong with my version? I've undone Moonraker2's version until a conclusion to this discussion is reached. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Spiritofstgeorge, thank you for raising this and I have replied in the "UKGB" section below. NB, I have changed my name to Moonraker since these discussions began. Moonraker (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moonraker and thanks for not just simply undoing my last edit. I think what you have now done is quite smart as a way of getting round the problem. Is there an easy way to change the name of the article because if there was an obvious solution would be to call the article 'Great Britain (kingdom)' - that way it is clearly not going to confused with the article called 'Great Britain' and it would make the point that its name was not 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. Thanks Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Spiritofstgeorge. The page could be moved and we could discuss it here. I think for most former kingdoms we use the "Kingdom of..." title where some disambiguation is needed to avoid confusion with a later country or region of the same name which is not an independent kingdom, for instance Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Bosnia, Kingdom of Burgundy, Kingdom of East Anglia, Kingdom of Portugal, and Kingdom of Naples. In an article, I suggest they are best written as "kingdom of Naples" or as "Naples". For most present-day kingdoms, on the other hand, we use the bare name - Morocco, Denmark, Swaziland, etc. - as the Kingdom of Swaziland is the same thing as Swaziland. I should say feel free to suggest a renaming in a new section below if you would like it discussed. Moonraker (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic has been under discussion, off and on, since 2002. Please make sure that you have read the existing discussion points before trying to add new ones. There are reasons why we do not use the word "united", even though we are well aware of the text of the Treaty of Union and both the English and the Scottish Acts of Union. Please, read the earlier discussion to find out what they are. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to change the name of the article from the Kingdom of Great Britain to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in seven days. Adam Smith and William Blackstone referred to it as the United Kingdom in the 1700s and constitutionalist A.V. Dicey referred to it as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It was never referred to as the kingdom of Great Britain from my research. Where is the evidence? The Treaty of Union and the Scottish and English legislation states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by the Parliament of Great Britain and even the name of the great seal was referred to as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, not Great Britain or Kingdom of Great Britain. Please state any objections to my proposed alteration below AlbionChief (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

See above discussion and don't make threats - withut consensus you will simply be reverted -----Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not making any threats. I am giving a seven day window for objections. I made minor edits to the Treaty of Union page but I am seeking consensus for this page. AlbionChief (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Not how it works - your changes have not received consensus so the changes are not accepted. Simply telling people they have seven days to object again is not on. You've been told to read the prior discussions and come back if you have some new evidence or argument. -----Snowded ^TALK 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving it would be disruptive and contrary to reason. DuncanHill (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. You have stated it would be disruptive, a valid reason for objection in my opinion. AlbionChief (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Cornish Language in Common Languages

I removed "Cornish Language" from the list of common languages in this article (a recent insertion) and Snowded (talk · contribs) has reverted this with the edit summary that Cornish is now recognised and promoted. This is true, and an article about The United Kingdom should mention this, but this article is about the Kingdom of Great Britain. During the period of this article the Cornish language went from a handful of native speakers to (probably) 0. See also our current discussion at Cornish Language (talk section: "Lead contradicts article"). I don't think this article is the place to mention that the language is now recognised and promoted. During the Kingdom of Great Britain as a historical period, it was neither.

The question is whether it deserves a mention at all. Perhaps so. But I don't think the place for a mention is in the infobox "common languages". Before removing the entry, I did look up the infobox template for a description of "common languages" but unfortunately there was none. Yet I don't think we can say that Cornish was a common language at this time by any obvious understanding of the term "common". It was a native language on the verge of extinction, but it was not spoken commonly. More people would have spoken Dutch or especially French as the language of the hearth (despite there being much lower immigration at the time) than spoke Cornish. So I don't think it should be there.

Thoughts? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

ETA: Just to add, my edit was a revert of recently added information. WP:BRD would suggest that this should have been discussed in talk before re-introducing the challenged material. Never mind though. Cheers. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The fact that there are serious attempts to revive it and they have some success makes it notable - I suggested adding a note to put it in context - its also a variant of Breton and Welsh -----Snowded ^TALK 16:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that the listing of Cornish as a common language of the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1801) is wrong. It was not a common language in this period. It does not belong in the infobox. It could well be notable in the main, when discussing the native languages. Also no attempts were made to revive it within this time period, so revival efforts are not notable for this article. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have resolved the issue by changing common languages to regional languages. I have also added in Norn as that was missing from the list. I added French with a note as it was official until 1731. Please be aware that this page relates to a historical period and not the modern United Kingdom, so any challenges to these changes must be considered in the historical context of the page. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

ETA just spotted my edit is not showing and now away from my computer for a couple of hours. Will actually ensure edit is published soon. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC) (Now fixed) -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Late though my comment is, I agree with Sirfurboy's reasoning and conclusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

"United Kingdom of Great Britain"?

Hi all

There is a rather fierce discussion going on at the German language Wikipedia (de:Diskussion:Königreich Großbritannien). A user is rock solidly convinced that the name "Kingdom of Great Britain" is wrong. He thinks that "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is correct and cites various books and websites. He also cites various Acts of Parliament he found an legislation.gov.uk. What is the consensus here? --Voyager (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It was always Kingdom of Great Britain between 1707 and 1801. It then became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 till Southern Ireland left in 1922 and the name was formally changed to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927 which remains the name of the country to this day. The "United" only became part of the name when Ireland joined in 1801 RWB2020 (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The National Anthem is wrong

The title says "God save the King" but the hyperlink goes to "God save the Queen". The Audio file also plays "God Save The Queen" so it needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazKader (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Between 1745, when the song was introduced, and 1800, the end of the period covered in this article, the monarch was always male. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"State of Great Britain" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect State of Great Britain and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#State of Great Britain until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Balkovec (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Great Britain (kingdom)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Great Britain (kingdom) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Great Britain (kingdom) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Balkovec (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Great Britain (Kingdom)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Great Britain (Kingdom) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Great Britain (Kingdom) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Balkovec (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Offcial end

So when did the Kingdom of Great Britain officially cease to be, as what time and on what date>Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Midnight (that is, the first instant of) 1st January 1801. Anything that says it ended on 31 December 1800 is simply wrong, because legislation takes effect at midnight, with no gap. But this mistake is so widespread on Wikipedia that there's no point trying to correct it. TharkunColl (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That is what I suspected, and errors should always be corrected.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It's all over the place and always gets reverted back. TharkunColl (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone again tried changing the date to 1801 and it was reverted, so let's put this matter to bed. I kind of pedantically agree with you that it persisted to 1801, but it is not something that goes in the article here because you could never say that without a line of explanation. It would be misleading, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform and not to mislead. In any case, I also pedantically disagree too. The legislation enacts at the first instant of 1801, but mathematically therefore the first instant is a limit. The status of the nation is undefined at the limit. As you approach the limit from the left (1800) the Kingdom persists, and as you approach the limit from the right (the whole of 1801) the UK exists. The article is right. So please don't put 1801 in the article - it is being reverted for a good reason. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

At the very end of 31 December 1800, because the union took effect at midnight, 1 January 1801. See Czechoslavakia as example, which split up at midnight, 1 January 1993 & thus its end date was at the end of 31 December 1992. Other examples? Presidents & Vice Presidents of Brazil, Governors & Lieutenant Governors of New York. Within the same year examples? Presidents of Mexico, who's terms end 30 November & begin 1 December. GoodDay (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)