Talk:Union Jack/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Merge these articles

Flag of Great Britain and Flag of the United Kingdom should be merged into this article. The 'Union Jack' was formed in 1606, not 1801. See flaginstitute.org. The scope of both of them is within the scope of this article. Why do we need to have two articles about two specific uses of this flag? Should we also have an article at Royal Union Flag of Canada? or Naval Jack of the Royal Navy? (both are uses of the Union Jack). Flag of Great Britain and Flag of the United Kingdom give no additionally information on the specific uses. Currently there is more information on the Flag of the United Kingdom at this article, then at Flag of the United Kingdom, so what is the point in directing users there? We either need a clearly defined content split (which in my opinion is unhelpful) or we need to merge these articles. Rob984 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Flag of X articles are about all flags used by a given entity, including historical and alternate flags. The Union Jack article is supposed to be about two specific, related flags, one that served as the flag of Great Britain and was also called the "King's Colours", and one that serves as the flag of the United Kingdom, and also covers those flags' use in other contexts, such as in other flags and in fashion. That said, neither Great Britain nor the United Kingdom has ever had any other flag, and thus the tendency for the country-specific articles to be overlapped by that of the flag itself. So there may be some merit to a merge. Ibadibam (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I should note also that the Union originated not as a national flag, but as a nautical insignia and later as an emblem of the sovereign. To this day, it doesn't have official status as the national flag, although it does have official status in a great many other uses. It's valuable to keep separate an article that discusses the design itself and its many applications (i.e. this article), and articles about the de facto national flags of the United Kingdom and its predecessor state. Ibadibam (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. I prefer to keep Flag of Great Britain and Flag of the United Kingdom separate from this article, because readers may want to view a specific "Flag of..." page without having to work their way through the entire history of the Union Flag and all the other content. Also, most major countries have a specific "Flag of {country}" page, so the UK should have this too, for reasons of consistency. I feel that a clearly-defined content split would be more suitable than a merge. - Blairall (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Union Jack. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100218213752/http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2609/3998116284_e733eba016_b.jpg to http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2609/3998116284_e733eba016_b.jpg
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100218213754/http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/169159047_949c211b8b_b.jpg to http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/169159047_949c211b8b_b.jpg
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100218213747/http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3589637303_d28495046d_b.jpg to http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3589637303_d28495046d_b.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

All three archived images match the Flickr originals and show what the descriptions purport.—Odysseus1479 00:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Union "Jack" Name Origin

This claim in the article: "In 1606, James VI gave orders for a British flag to be created which bore the combined crosses of St. George and of St. Andrew. The result was the Union Jack, Jack being a shortening of Jacobus, the Latin version of James" ... needs a citation. I very highly doubt that peasants of 1606 used a nickname in Latin for the King. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite right. "Jack" occupies 6 pages of the complete OED (2nd ed) and the use of the word in English goes back to the 14th century, appearing as a forename in Piers the Plowman. Quite early on it was used as a name for a peasant or "a man of the lower orders" (OED2). It continued the low class connotations in phrases such as "every man jack" or the use of jack for the knave in cards. The diminutive form is also seen in "Jack of all trades, master of none", where Jack implies a poor tradesman, possibly not up to journeyman standard. The term was taken into inanimate objects and denoted a small (or occasionally inferior) component: jack-pit (a small mine shaft), jackplug (single pronged, low current), jack-shaft (intermediate or idler shaft), jack (in bowling: the small ball) or jack-engine (a donkey or barring engine). Incidentally, a jack is a garment for the upper body (quotes from 1375 onwards), a jacket is derived from this and is a small jack; not the other way around.

Coming now to flags, a jack flag was a small flag, used to distinguish it from the large ensign or pennants. The OED mentions the theory of its derivation from James I or from a leathern jacket but dismisses both: "neither of these conjectures covers the early use of the word". Originally the jack would have been flown from the spritsail topmast head (OED2): "You are alsoe for this present service to keepe in yo^r Jack at yo^r Boultspritt end" (sailing instructions 1633 as quoted in OED2).In 1667 Pepys records the Dutch taking the Royal Charles and a man "struck her flag and jacke" - clearly two different things. By 1692 the jackstaff had been developed to fly the jack: "Jack staff and Jack" (OED2: jack-staff). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that this flag's origin is very much as a jack-flag. No flag was "just a flag". The jack was a distinct flag from the ensign, which until 1864 was a unit insignia, much like a regimental colour in both design and purpose. It was the jack that denoted nationality (compare to the United States, which has always used the same ensign for every ship, and came to use that flag, not the jack, as the national flag). It's also worth noting that the Union flag was not adapted to land use until 1743, when it was altered in dimension to serve as the King's Colour for all regiments. But it was the naval jack, with its narrower ratio, that became the national flag.

I also think it's important that, according to OED, the first use of "jack" for a flag was in 1633, while the flag itself was introduced in 1606. If the term "jack" relates to a garment, it would not be because the design was first used on such a garment, but because the flag was compared to one. OED's preferred etymology relating to the use of "jack" as a diminutive is also problematic, because most of the preceding or contemporary examples given are not only diminutive but also pejorative, and it's rather odd that such an insult would enter general use. So I think that it's not much less plausible that "Jack's flag" became "jack-flag". I'd also point to OED's definition of "jack" dating to the 16th century: "A name for various contrivances consisting (solely or essentially) of a roller or winch." Being that the jack was at the top of the mast and the ensign at the stern, perhaps the jack was a flag that had to be raised by windlass, unlike the ensign, which might simply have been lashed on. There are so many possibilities, and ultimately all anyone has is conjecture about this subject. Ibadibam (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Just briefly (it's bed-time here): "jack" started out pejoratively but many of its meanings only carry "small" as the implication, so I doubt that an insult was intended. Consider a ship of 1606: there would be a small jack at the bows, a large ensign at the stern and a pennant form the main top (possibly other tops). The ensign would be several times the size of the jack, the pennant very many times longer. The jack was at the bowsprit top and would not need a windlass, it was small, the mast small and the mast a long way from the ship's windlass which was used for things like raising spars or the anchor. I think the jack/jacket explanation doesn't hold any water, the OED dismisses it, and the folk etymologists have the derivations the wrong way around.

Thanks for trying to get user:Platinumpaintitblack to try and use the correct forum rather than a blunderbuss approach to user talk pages! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said "windlass", because I really only meant a block or some other pulley. I based this only on the fact that the 1606 proclamation called for ships to "beare [the Union] in their Mainetoppe". If by 1633 it had changed to the bowsprit, does this mean that there was a change in ship design, or just a change in where the flag was flown? Ibadibam (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the 1606 quote to hand, the OED seems to start with the 1633 sailing directions which refer to the bowsprit "Boultspritt end". The OED refers to the bowsprit topmast head. A jack at the maintop seems odd, not least because it would be barely visible. It's also important to bear in mind that it would be flown not only on ships, but also smaller vessels such as brigs, schooners and yawls. Most of these would not have a convenient mast at the end of the bowsprit, so either a jackmast (as later in powered vessels) or the fore-top stay would serve.

In the OED2 jack sb³ specifically refers to jack sb¹ sense 34b on page 164 'diminutive force'. It includes the quotation:

In British use the jack has been since the 17th-c (except under the Commonwealth) a small sized 'Union Flag' of the period (Union Jack), which has also been, since 1707, inserted in the upper canton of the ensign; hence, the name 'Union Jack' is often improperly applied to the union flag itself when this is not carried or used as a jack. Every maritime nation has a jack of its own; this is usually, either as in Great Britain, the German Empire, Sweden and the United States, the same as the canton of the ensign, or, as in France or the Netherlands, identical with the ensign,only smaller.

— Prof J K Laughton, "jack sb³". Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. VI (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989. p. 166.

The "Mainetoppe" quotation is at the "Union flag" entry. The full excerpt given there is:

[1606 King James VI & I in Stuart Royal Proclam. (1973) I. lxiv. 135 Whereas some difference hath arisen betweene our Subjects of South and North Britaine travayling by Seas, about the bearing of their Flagges: For the avoyding of all such contentions hereafter, Wee have with the advise of our Councell ordered; That from hencefoorth all our Subjects of this Isle and Kingdome of great Britaine and the members thereof, shall beare in their Mainetoppe, the Red Crosse, commonly called St. Georges Crosse, and the White Crosse commonly called S Andrewes Crosse, joyned together according to a forme made by our Heralds.]

So while it's not here referred to as a "jack", nor is it flown at the bowsprit, it is the very flag that would later be flown at the bowsprit by 1633, and which had also acquired the name "jack" by that time. I take this to mean that the flag itself predated the concept of a jack flag, and that the term "jack" was coined to apply to the Union flag in particular. But what I really want to do is try to dig up contemporary illustrations to see how ships were actually wearing these flags. Interestingly, J.K. Laughton, while cited here in the 1989 edition, actually lived 1830–1915. I wonder whether he wasn't the first to write about the question of correct word choice. Ibadibam (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So it was a flag when full size and flown at the maintop, but the small version flown in the bows was a jack. QED? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Laughton quotation above was evidently carried over from the first OED, in which the definition for UNION JACK reads “Originally and properly, a small British union flag flown as the jack of a ship; in later and more general use extended to any size or adaptation of the union flag (even when not used as a jack), and regarded as the national ensign.” It includes an 1801 magazine citation instancing this “later and more general use”, so after more than two centuries I think it would be quite pedantic to insist on “flag” in any context but the most technical.—Odysseus1479 23:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is doubting the colloquial (“later and more general use”) use of "jack" for "flag". What has been argued is that "Originally and properly" the name is "jack" for a small flag in the bows and "flag" for the large variant elsewhere. Crucially though, this is not a modern invention, but a usage which goes right back to the development of the flag and is reflected in other nations' use. It's also in widespread and current use. An encyclopaedia ought to reflect the correct, precise, name and then note the common name rather than dismissing the correct name as "this idea has taken hold very firmly in many peoples' minds - but it is a falsehood, a modern myth". To give a reductio ad absurdum: King William I was known during his lifetime as "the Bastard", and has been ever since. Should we therefore change all references to "the Conqueror" to "the Bastard" on the basis of over nine centuries? Clearly not, and therefore we should not insist on dismissing the correct name for our national flag on the basis of a magazine article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don’t think the ‘proper‘ name should be disparaged, and I certainly agree the origin and the terminological niceties should be explained. But neither should the reader be given an impression that general use of the common ‘nickname‘ is ignorant or wrong.—Odysseus1479 09:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just a case of getting the balance correct. This discussion started because one editor was disparaging it repeatedly and claiming the use of "Union Flag" to be an improper false modernism. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I was never "disparaging it repeatedly and claiming the use of "Union Flag" to be an improper false modernism". You are a master of misreporting. I am merely correcting the completely false impression (perpetuated even here in this discussion) that Union Jack is a 'colloquial', common or slang name: whereas Union Flag is a 'correct' legal and official name. That is simply untrue. Both are and were used widely and correctly since the earliest records: neither are or indeed were specifically for use at sea or land. The history of the names is lost forever and the idea that that name Union Jack is or indeed was the correct use at sea whereas the on-land name should be Union Flag is a modern idea. As confirmed by The Flag Institute website which I cited quite correctly which confirms - "It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag”." . Ianbrettcooper (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You state that the "diagram and the accompanying text are inconsistent", but you don't state your reasoning. How are they inconsistent?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is inconsistent because the text says, for example, that the red diagonal is 1⁄15 of the flag's height, yet if drawn as depicted in the diagram it would not be 1⁄15 of the flag's height. 86.160.82.217 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, don't they teach basic geometry in school anymore? This is SAS triangle solution, and a very basic one. You know the exact proportions of any two sides of the two triangles making up this rectangle: they're 60 units and 30 units, which reduces to 2:1. This is obviously a right-angle triangle, so you know two sides and one angle. But you don't even need trig for this one. A triangle's angles total 180 degrees; one of them is 90; the proportions are exactly 2:1, so the other angles are therefore 30 degrees and 60 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.61.136 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the diagram, in fact it is the only thing I do understand. The description in the bullets defeats me, mostly the second bullet- what is the normal and broad white diagonal about, the 1/15 implies 2 units, there is nothing on the diagram's white diagonal with 2 units of white. The paragraph below seems ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.201.152 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that you point it out, I think that you're right. The offending paragraph is copied here so others reading this don't have to flip back and forth between the article and the talk page.

The three component crosses that make up the Union Flag are sized as follows:

• The red St George's Cross width is 1⁄5 of the flag's height with a 1⁄15 flag height fimbriation
• The white diagonal St Andrew's Cross width is 1⁄15 of the flag's height and the broader white diagonal's width is 1⁄10 of the flag's height
• The red diagonal St Patrick's Cross width is 1⁄15 of the flag's height and the narrow white diagonal's width is 1⁄30 of the flag's height

I think that the thing that is confusing is that, unlike the description of the St George's Cross, there is no mention of fimbriation. The visible parts of both the St Andrew's and St Patrick's crosses is two units or 1⁄15 wide and each has a 1⁄30 fimbriation as is shown in this diagram:

So, perhaps the second and third bullet points could be rewritten like this:

• The white diagonal St Andrew's Cross width is 1⁄15 of the flag's height with a 1⁄30 flag height fimbriation
• The red diagonal St Patrick's Cross width is 1⁄15 of the flag's height with a 1⁄30 flag height fimbriation

I suspect that some mention of the counterchange should be included but I'm not quite clear on how to best accomplish that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Union Jack. 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/20090325162006/http://www.saskd.ca/heritage.pdf to http://www.saskd.ca/heritage.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid%3D16609593%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633-name_page.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) 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"More Correct" Statement

I'm sorry but I must disagree with your recent edit. The links you deleted were all high quality links, The College of Heralds, HMG and the Royal Family. The first three exclusively refer to the "Union Flag", never mentioning the "Union Jack" anywhere. The Royal Family website does mention the the jack as an alternative term, right at the bottom. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Whilst they may use the term "Union Flag" and are indeed high-quality links, there is nothing in any of those pages saying that Union Flag is more correct than Union Jack. It would appear that there is a style choice amongst official websites to use the term Union Flag but that doesn't make it any more correct, any more than the government's style preference for using "organization" makes it any more correct than "organisation". I have reverted the edit, until someone can add a quality source that specifically states that one is more correct than the other, rather than someone's having reached that conclusion by the lack of use of the other term (as that would be original research - "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.") Jellyfish dave (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If every greengrocer's website calls a spherical green object a "cabbage" but never says it is not a "rhubarb", would you likewise assume that the terms are interchangeable? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union Jack. 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/20110728005107/http://www.scoutingtorlesse.org/Scouts/Resources/The_New_Zealand_Flag.pdf to http://www.scoutingtorlesse.org/Scouts/Resources/The_New_Zealand_Flag.pdf

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) 13:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union Jack. 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/20160816065341/http://www.churchillarchive.com/exhibitions/churchill-the-power-of-words to http://www.churchillarchive.com/exhibitions/churchill-the-power-of-words

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) 07:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union Jack. 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/20021112210421/http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10 to https://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=%E7%B1%B3%E5%AD%97%E6%97%97&btnG=Search+Images

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) 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

St Patrick's cross truncated in the 3:5 war flag?

Under #Other ratios:

The 3:5 version is most commonly used by the British Army and is sometimes known as the War flag. In this version the innermost points of the lower left and upper right diagonals of the St Patrick's cross are cut off or truncated.

In all the representations I've seen of the UK flag, whether 1:2 or 3:5, they are (to my eyes) identical in all ways other than the angle of the diagonals. What is this about diagonals of the St Patrick's cross being cut off or truncated? Assuming the statement is true, can we get a fuller explanation or a figure to demonstrate the truncation? D. F. Schmidt (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Flag of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Flag of Hawaii update needed

According to one story, the King of Hawaii asked the British mariner, George Vancouver, during a stop in Lahaina, what the piece of cloth flying from his ship was. Vancouver replied that it represented his king's authority.

This "story" needs to be updated to match our article content over at Flag_of_Hawaii#Origins. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A footnote for Hawaii's flag should be added, since "the Union Jack" in the canton isn't technically the Union Jack. The flag in Hawaii's canton has a 4:7 ratio, in contrast to the Jack's 1:2 ratio. Source: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 5-19 (more specifically, line 4B). Also, while not officially described, Hawaii's flag (including the canton) usually uses the specific shades of red and blue used in the flag of the United States, rather than the specific shades from the Union Jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.137.76 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions, comments and suggestions

This was an interesting and well written article. I made a series of small improvements to the text and the layout. I have a series of questions, comments and suggestions.

1. "This is the only occasion when it correct to describe the flag as the Union Jack".

Is the word "is" missing between "when" and "it"?

2. The text says "In the Chinese language".

There is no such thing as a "Chinese language" but a variety of family of Chinese languages and Chinese is not an equivalent of Mandarin or any other language that uses hanzi.

3. "As it appears in the London Gazette, the broad stripe is where expected for three of the four quarters, but the upper left quarter shows the broad stripe below".

The part between the commas does not sound right grammatically.

4. "The original flag appears in the canton of the Commissioners' Ensign of the Northern Lighthouse Board".

What flag?

5. "Lord Howe's action, or the Glorious First of June, painted in 1795, shows a Union flying from HMS Queen Charlotte on the "Glorious First of June" 1794".

I think the word "Union" should be followed by "Jack". Alone it does not make sense.

6a. "...the removal of the cross of St. Patrick Cross after 120 years will transform the appearance of the flag. It will certainly become a flag under which great victories were won in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but to most minds the sentimental loss will be great. Probably it will be found that the deletion is not absolutely necessary. Other possible changes include the abolition of the title of the United Kingdom, and the removal of the harp from the Royal Standard and the Coat of Arms, and the substitution of the Ulster emblem".

The removal of the cross of Saint Patrick would certainly transform the flag of the U.K. There is no doubt about that. The fact is that the Union Jack of 1801 had its time and place in the past between 1801 and 1922. It is anachronistic since then. As an outsider and a fan of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, after reading and watching documentaries on each of the entities many times it totally makes sense to me to reintroduce the flag that was used between 1606 and 1801. It is chronologically correct and it represents the nations in the U.K.: England and Scotland. We could make an argument for Wales and Northern Ireland since they are not properly represented - they are a principality and a region/province - but I would digress. The flag of James I of England/VI of Scotland would also respect the independence of the Irish people. The argument against reverting to that flag because it would cost too much does not make sense because all flags eventually wear out and a progressive introduction would eventually replace all flags since they don't last forever. The Union Jack of 1801 was used to infer possession of the entire Ireland with a cross of Saint Patrick which is not even a particularly Irish symbol nowadays. Just because Northern Ireland takes up 6 counties in Ireland is not a justification and a proper variation of the Union Jack should be used if the one of 1606 is not appropriate.

6b. Aiken's comment about "the removal of the cross of St Patrick" being a "waste time on heraldic disputations" is just another justification for not realizing that Ireland is no longer part of the U.K. Every flag should be designed to represent the values, the history and the values that truly incarnate a culture/country.

7. "In 2003, a private individual started a campaign – dubbed "reflag" or "Union Black" – to introduce black stripes in the Union Jack in order to represent the increasing diversity in the United Kingdom. The proposal was universally met with opposition and was denounced by MSP Phil Gallie as "ridiculous tokenism [that] would do nothing to stamp out racism". The campaign is now defunct".

I must agree this is just another progressive stunt that, by the way, has nothing to do with history or heraldry.

8. "No law has been passed making the Union Jack the national flag of the United Kingdom: it has become one through precedent. Its first recorded recognition as a national flag came in 1908".

This sounds contradictory. Has it been the national flag since 1908? Has it been written in law since then?

9. "Civilian use is permitted on land, but use of the unmodified flag at sea is restricted to military vessels".

This passage does not make much sense.

10. "This difference arose after Members of the Scottish Parliament complained that Scotland was the only country in the world that could not fly its national flag on its national day".

When did this happen?

11. "According to one story, the King of Hawaii asked the British mariner, George Vancouver, during a stop in Lahaina, what the piece of cloth flying from his ship was. Vancouver replied that it represented his king's authority".

Who was the king in question?

12. "Then the badge is incorporated in their police flag".

Should "is" be "was"?

13. In the "Union Flag variants 1606–1801" section the Irish and English flags are older than mentioned. They date back to the Middle Ages.

ICE77 (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Victorian Red Ensign

There is no link or other source of information about the “Victorian Red Ensign”. The term could be interpreted in various ways: the flag of the United Kingdom during the reign of Queen Victoria, a flag representing the Victorian era itself, a flag personally related to Queen Victoria, the flag of the Australian state of Victoria, the flag of the Canadian city of Victoria, the flag of the capital city of the Seychelles, and any number of others. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it could be interpreted in various ways, but what it looks like is the most important clue: the Australian flag. See Flag of Victoria (Australia). BilCat (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Union Jack at the Eureka Stockade.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Pink Union Jack

I've noticed the [Pink Union Jack] isn't mentioned here. Although it is a variation of the Union Jack specifically represents the LGBTQ+ Community in The United Kingdom, but not the country itself, should it be mentioned? If it should be a part of this article, where should it be placed? If it is not suited for this, then why? SswampyOasis (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Possibly consider LGBT rights in the United Kingdom. On the face of it it looks a bit offensive to the Scots, the blue of the Scottish saltire is eradicated which might not go down too well north of the border. Be that as it may, it's not an official variant of the Union Flag and probably shouldn't be in the main Union Flag article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@SswampyOasis While I doubt it warrants feature here I imagine it would fit fine in List of United Kingdom flags, perhaps under the "Miscellaneous" section. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the United Kingdom (construction sheet).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)