Talk:Names of States on the British Isles (Archive)

Jtdirl, why did you move this? George I was the first King of the United Kingdom, since Anne was the first Queen, and he came after her. -- Zoe

-- George I was not 'of the United Kingdom' because the United Kingdom only came into being in 1801, with the merger of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. During his reign, he was King of Great Britain (ie, the merged kingdoms of England and Scotland). Anne was the first queen of Great Britain.

The United Kingdom was formed by the Act of Union of 1707 In addition, there is a huge list of articles that link to the original page, and nothing links here but the redirect. -- Zoe

Are you planning on moving all of the British monarchs between 1717 and 1801, and fix the list of United Kingdom monarchs? -- Zoe

Strictly speaking, from 1707 to 1800 there was a united kingdom called: "Great Britain," then from 1801 to 1927 a united kingdom called: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", then since 1927 a united kingdom called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The style of George I in English was "George I, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, &c" (or in Latin, "Georgius I Dei Gratia Magnae Britanniae, Franciae et Hiberniae Rex, Fidei Defensor, Brunscvicensis et Luneburgensis Dux, Sacri Romani Imperii Archithesaurarius et Elector"). If anyone's going to change the names of the articles, they should also change the text of the articles. I abstain from voting on whether that's worthwhile. -- Someone else 02:45 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Not true, Zoe. The Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the Act of Union. The United Kingdom was created when the parliament of Ireland voted for the Act of Union joining GB and Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Check any history book, for example - Norman Davis, the Isles (ISBN:033376370x) It is elementary school history, so if Wikipedia is wrong on such a basic fact as what the names were for the joined kingdoms formed in 1707 and 1801, then Wikipedia is going to have to be changed completely because it is fundamentally wrong. (If an exam student got such a basic fact wrong, they would be automatically failed. I know, as I study and write about British and Irish history and grade students!)

Thanks, someone-else. The Irish Free State left the UK in 1922 but the actual name of the UK wasn't changed until the mid 1920s. I do think it is necessary. If Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia (and I think it is) then we have to be right on such basic info. JTD 02:52 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Ok, you got my vote <G>. I'm just glad you're the one doing it, it does seem labour intensive! -- Someone else 02:59 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

The term United Kingdom was rarely if ever used even during the nineteenth century, it was not widely employed until Irish independence in the twenties. Before then Britain was refered to by a number of titles, but including the occasional use of United Kingdom as early as 1707. UK is not totally accurate, but neither is Great Britain. I don't think moving the articles is necessary. -SimonP

The titles are clear, explicit and in every history book. If Wikipedia takes itself seriously, then the titles have to be correct. JTD 03:10 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. For instance the World Book Encyclopedia refers to all British monarchs as 'of England;' AJP Taylor refers to everyone as being 'of Britain;' while Cobban refers to Anne and George I as as 'of the United Kingdom.' If Wikipedia is in error then it is in very good company. There is great latitude with these titles, and I still do not think a unilateral shift is desirable. -SimonP

Well, it's not unilateral, because I think it's a good idea as well. I mean, really - the UK as we understamd it today didn't exist until 1801, so it simply doesn't make sense to say somebody before that date was a monarch of this place. If the World Book, Taylor and Cobban are wrong, then they're wrong - that's no reason for us to be wrong as well. "... of Great Britain" is perhaps imperfect, as these people were kings of other places as well, but then so is Elizabeth II. I think "... of Great Britain" is the best title we can give these monarchs. --Camembert

The worldbook is so unreliable their CD version plays the wrong Irish national anthem! (I could fill this page with its many many many inaccuracies.) Getting terms wrong is quite usual in books, unfortunately, where, in a long discursive piece, the wrong technical title can slip in and not be spotted by your editor. I'm in the middle of writing two simuntaneously ( I must be mad!!!). Because of all sorts of confusion, I ended up having to go back to basics, ie, formal legislative titles, correct nomenclature, etc. On the issue of the nomenclature, the facts are clear. Great Britain became used as an unofficial name for the Kingdoms of Scotland and England when James VI of Scotland inherited the english throne, as a geo-political, not state term. But it became the official title for the merged state when the two thrones were merged in the 1707 Act of Union. When Ireland was added in 1801, the name changed again, with the words 'United Kingdom' at the start and 'and Ireland' added at the end. That again changed in the 1920s, when Ireland was replaced by Northern Ireland. If for example, you look up the index of Norman Davies The Isles which specifically focuses on titles and terms, Anne to George II are monarchs of 'GB', not the UK. The terms may be used with great latitude, but they should not be, because you do need to know which state you are talking about, know when they merged, what they then became, when analysing the history of a period. JTD 03:42 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I have gone through the list and done the factual corrections and checked the links to make sure they work. I'd hate to see my professor's reaction if he had seen claims that the UK was created in 1707 or Anne was queen of the UK. It would have made Wikipedia a laughing stock in my history dept, which it most definitely does not deserve to be. Sorry if I seem a bit touchy on issues of nomenclature. In the area I study, facts are regularly blurred through historical inaccuracy. if I know a fact to be wrong, a name to be misplaced, or whatever, it tends to bug me, particularly when it is in something as worthwhile as Wikipedia. Whoever put in the original pages did a fine job. They simply got the nomenclature of the various states wrong, and I have corrected that. If I am going to urge my students to use Wikipedia (and I already have done so), I want them to be able to trust something as basic as the right nomenclature. JTD 03:48 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Again going through my collection J.C. Herold refers to him as George IV of England, Eric Hobsbawm seems to jump between Britain, Great Britain, and United Kingdom for all periods. There is no right answer, it is revisionism to insist that we must apply specific terms to a time when there was no specific term for the nation. Legal titles will lead us astray, after all Queen Victoria should then be refered to as Empress Victoria. Rather we should use the most common term, the vast majority of people of the time in the eighteenth century refered to the monarchs as 'of England.' -SimonP

For the Continuation of this debate, go to Talk: George I of Great Britain