Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History Portal
Geography Portal
Atlas Portal

Kingdom of Great Britain is within the scope of the Former Countries WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).

Article Grading:
The article has not yet been rated. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

WP Former Countries - Things to do:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Derek, we obviously both want to get these things right. (And yes, I have been wrong before too!) My interest is simple. I write a lot about royal/state/presidential titles on an academic level, because studying headships of state is my speciality. When I lectured students, confusion over just what was what caused endless difficulties to undergraduates trying to master the complexities of history. Sometimes titles are ambiguous, sometimes they have evolved over time. Often books (history and otherwise) mix up terms like UK, GB, England, etc. But given that most people reading these pages in Wikipedia won't have the sort of academic backgrounds and qualifications we have, it is important to give clarity where we can give clarity.

The 1707 did refer to a 'united kingdom'. Obviously we cannot interview those who wrote the Act to work out what they meant (is there a page of seances?). So we have to rely on precedent & judgment, offering whatever clarity we can. When they talked about a 'United Kingdom' in 1707, it seems (and this is the consensus I found among senior historians) they were being descriptive, describing what they wanted the new kingdom to be, a united kingdom, rather than giving this new kingdom a name. (Hence its use in the above quote from the Act, which then curiously talks about the parliament of 'Great Britain'. One would expect they to use the official name of the kingdom when referring to the Kingdom's parliament!). The name overwhelmingly used is 'Kingdom of Great Britain', with the word 'united' occasionally used, but not universally until after 1801, when UK was a clear definition of the new post 1801 kingdom. The term 'United Kingdom' might have been relevant if they called it, for example, the 'United Kingdom of England and Scotland'. But instead they used the name for the island of Great Britain as the new legal name for the kingdom. Hence 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. United Kingdom of GB would make no sense, as there is only one GB. Who had it it united with? (Hence 'united' being descriptive.)

When this kingdom merged with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801, the name 'Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' wasn't suitable because it could be seen as indicating two separate kingdoms working together, not a united solitary kingdom. So the term 'United Kingdom' was unambiguously introduced to describe the merged kingdom covering both islands, and adapted in the 1920s when the Irish Free State left. Norman Davies' The Isles is quite clear in the index in describing monarchs between 1707 and 1801 and being 'of Great Britain' and after 1801 as being of the UK (in one of its two incarnations, though even his index has errors, with George V at one point being 'king of England'). Because titles are my area of academic interest, perhaps I am more concerned with them and getting them right than most others. But because different titles refer to different kingdoms, involving England, Scotland, Ireland (or now Northern Ireland), and that has different sensitivities to people studying history in those nations, it is important that Wikipedia get things right if possible.

One final quick point. On Wikipedia I placed references to the Better Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Though 'Better' is technically part of its name, I've removed it because in common discourse and in books, the Act was simply known as the 'Govt. of Ireland Act'. In a similar vein, even if 'united' was occasionally used as part of the GB title (and it seems whether through error or for other reasons it was, though apparently discriptively), as the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is by far the most widely used version, that in itself justifies its use in that form, without the 'united', which was only widely used for the post 1801 kingdom. I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. (PS: happy new year!) JTD 20:24 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to put some of that in the article. I for one find the heading "Kingdom of Great Britain" strange, so I think an explanation available without looking at the talk page is in order.

P.S. It never struck me that a kingdom couldn't be united by itself.Bagpuss 21:27 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. England and Scotland were united, and thus, 'United Kingdom' is perfectly valid. With no written constitutional document declaring the name, we cannot be sure, but it seems to me that United Kingdom was its name. As well as this, 'The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', would be equally valid, as that was what it was. Unlike before then, where Ireland and Britain had one King sitting on two thrones(Metaphorically, of course), they now had one throne, as had happened in 1707 - it was a near-identical situation. As to 'common usage'. Well, a quick google shows 447 references to 'Kingdom of Great Britain', and 7770 references to "United Kingdom of Great Britain'(Both sans Northern and Ireland). Not conclusive, but it serves to reinforce the point. The fact is, Britain has no official name, but we all learn 1707 as the date of the foundation of the UK, so I'm lending weight to that side of the argument. Oh, and also, the reason Norman Davies called them kings of 'Great Britain' before 1801 and of the UK afterwards is simple pragmatics. 'Great Britain and Ireland' is a mouthful, unlike simple 'Great Britain'.

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

Hmm. I personally think that that's rather ugly...

James F. (talk) 21:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1 Mais oui! Edits
2 Former
3 Hanover Arms
4 Talk:Kingdom of England; Union of the Crowns
5 1603-1707
6 First Lord of the Treasury
7 The Act of Union 1707 states "the United Kingdom of Great Britain"

[edit] Mais oui! Edits

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

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

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

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

[edit] Former

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

I sort of think it's unnecessary to put this right before the first mention at the beginning. It seems like if you put "former" here, you would have to put it at the beginning of several other pages, like Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, etc. I'm going to try and reword the opening. --JW1805 23:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I woudln't have a problem adding former to all the above; it's concise and accurate (a bit like "the late Arthur Askey"). What about:

The Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800), also sometimes known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, was created by...

Andy Mabbett 23:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the whole article is written in the past tense, it's fairly obvious that we are talking about an ex-Kingdom long before the end of the article. However I'm not going to object to the use of the word "former" even though it is superfluous. I do however object weakly to the use of the word "nation" since it normally refers to the peoples. The more technically correct word here and the one whose use I would prefer is "state" which refers to the governments. And on the subject of Treaty/Act, both the Scots and the English government published Acts. Neither published a Treaty. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What about using "country" (instead of nation or state). --JW1805 02:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Country" is better than "nation" but technically it refers to a geographical entity -- and no one can deny that Scotland and England were united geographically millions of years before they were united politically, <grin>. I still prefer "state". -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hanover Arms

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

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

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

Actually, some would argue that those first arms were the last used by the Kingdom of England. Did England become part of Great Britain with James, or with Anne (the second arms are postulated as the first held by Great Britain)? Regardless, Anne used the Jacobean arms before the (pro-Hanoverian) Parliament adapted to the Stuart practice of calling their collective island dominion "Great Britain". Regardless of Whiggish Parliamentary perceptions, the succession of James is to this day considered the "Union of the Crowns". That in my mind, makes these arms I provide the first of Great Britain and not the last of England. James himself called it Great Britain, while the Royal website begins the series of Great Britain at James--as do all genealogical charts. Cromwellians be damned, because the status of a kingdom rests on its Crown and not its Parliament--there is no British Republic (the US doesn't count, right?)! There are other reasons behind this madness. There is absolutely nobody from the middle or lower class with royal descent from King James, while the upper class calls itself British--totally anathema to those not of this social status. I think it can probably be further proved that there is nobody from the lesser classes with Protestant Royal ancestors--just Roman Catholic kings (am I right or wrong?).

Monarchs have informally been ascribed these titles since 1603, but calling James I of England is just as retroactively like somebody calling Philip I of Spain "King of Aragon" instead. The constituent countries of Castile and Aragon have not been separated since Philip Habsburg, neither have England and Scotland been separated since James Stuart. This politique of the Stuarts was fought harshly by Parliament, but it is true that it was no different from the Habsburgs--which is why the practice was hated. Reinterpretation of history and that liberal spin of Whiggery descending from Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester (via Oliver Cromwell) does nothing but brainwash schoolchildren into believing otherwise. The revisionist interpretations I am talking about, are the advancement of Protestantism in the British Isles and this is further explained in the omission of King Philip from the Royal website beside Mary--unlike the equal status shown for William and Mary. As a descendent of those Conservative recusants who had priest holes, I will not give in to Liberal Protesant bigotry. There was a United Kingdom of Spain, which preceded in idea a United Kingdom of Great Britain...a Union of the Crowns for both countries. But keep on believing in the Black Legend. IP Address 15:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1603-1707

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

You are mistaken in belief that the civil government is the same as the royal government. The Kingdom of Great Britain existed since James, while the Parliament of Great Britain existed since Anne. It's King vs Parliament in a battle of perceptions on the matter. In any case, such a monumental transition in history could not happen all at once. The Royal website begins the United Kingdom at 1603 until the present, to avoid reliance on convoluted Parliamentary perceptions that over-elongate the several stages of union and regime changes which have continually defined phases in the nature of the British Isles. See here. Lord Loxley 03:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the article to reflect only Royalist history is POV. Yes, there is a school of thought that dictates that the country was founded in 1603, but it has not been taken seriously by any historian of note since the 19th Century. I question it myself, but the parliamentary view is always accepted as fact, and ought to be here. Having said that, there is no reason that there can't be a section (similar to the one I added on the name) that details the Royalist view. Bastin 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the traditional history is not accepted by the producers of Whig history and those lovers of the aristocrats who took over the country, causing the American War of Independence? Yes, I agree that there should be a dual presentation. Wikipedia is supposed to be fair to all. Lord Loxley 16:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed reference to Whig history from my last message, as it seems rather confusing in the circumstances. Two signs of Whig history are the over-emphasis of early parliamentary importance and the belief in a natural progression towards the present. Since, in this case, the two arguments oppose each other, I thought it best not to invoke the Whigs! Bastin 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really familar with the "Whig History" term. The problem I had was the view that just because England and Scotland had the same monarch, they were the same country. Canada and the UK currently have the same monarch, but are they the same country? Of course not. They have separate Parliaments and a common monarch (just like England and Scotland did from 1603-1707). --JW1805 (Talk) 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

James referred to his royal domain as Great Britain, not the island but the "imperial crowne". The Calvinists objected to his terminology and authority, which they deemed as not befitting his rule. They claimed he was a despot, but this was the first time in history that England and Scotland were fused together. James tried to use the Episcopalian clergy to spread uniformity throughout Great Britain, as a compromise between the Calvinists and Catholics. James treated England the same way he did Scotland. The Irish refer to the Ulster Plantation as a British operation, not English or Scottish. One must see Great Britain from a foreign perspective, rather than as a partisan royal subject. Traditions like those are deeply ingrained, but it was the same thing as Ferdinand and Isabel uniting Spain. Of course, this process was not final until the Habsburg rule--that doesn't mean people refuse to credit F & I for their union of the two Catholic Realms. Why should we deny James and the Stuart family their decent place in history, rather than attribute that to Parliament and leave the first British Royal Family to the wolves because Parliament says so? It is in fact Whig history, which is why I think we should go by international perspectives of post-1603 British Isles politics--which is neutral and unaffected by bias. The United Kingdom was not a Constitutional Monarchy between 1603-1689, but it was in fact a United Kingdom. They shared the same Sovereign and even the same politics, the same religious elements and even language (English and Scots) under the separate parliaments (even same coinage?). Monarchy and Commonwealth used a similar coat of arms, which is pretty much the symbol of modern social identity in the British Isles. The chief difference is that Parliament did not approve of retaining our French connection and so, Plantagenet claims of the French kingdom were removed under Cromwells and Hanoverians. I wish other Englishmen would not be so into anti-French jingoism, because it clouds their understanding of the nature regarding the UK. In fact, it seems like the bigots get to determine how English history is written. We in the Wikipedia community should be above this guttersniping hooliganism. You see, I'm Canadian and understand the Anglo-French relationship as it was supposed to be. Late 17th century aristocrats replaced British identity with a German one, which is why we as Canadians feel that there is a national purpose in Canada's freedom. Lord Loxley 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter if they shared the same sovereign, politics, religion, language, or anything else. The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland were two separate countries until the Acts of Union merged them together in 1707. That is the legal and historical consensus. Plenty of countries now and throughout history have shared monarchs, but remained independent of each other (it is called a personal union). It seems like your views about what people "should" believe are your own POV. And I don't think the "foreign perspective" is what we should use. A lot of people today use "England", "Great Britain", and "United Kingdom" interchangeably, but they have distinct legal meanings and aren't the same thing. It's a complicated topic, see British Isles (terminology) for details. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the revised and Parliamentary perspective as put forth in Whig history, a form of scholasticism based upon total opposition to the Stuart dynasty and represented by the wealthy and elitist aristocracy. It's not "my" POV, it is the international viewpoint. When referring to the royal dominion of the Stuarts as shown on atlases and maps, they consider it Great Britain because of facts. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Just because the regime changes may have shifted the definition of the United Kingdom since the Jacobean era, doesn't mean that the royal domain was somehow different. They remained the same lands as inherited by the Stewart and Tudor houses. Don't let the Whigs confuse you. Lord Loxley 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So, since the "royal domain" of Queen Elizabeth II includes Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, does that mean they are the same country? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you defend the aristocratic coup d'etat of 1689, could you please explain why the Kingdom of England page has the Tudor arms and not the Stuart arms between 1603 until then? Why do Wikipedia editors like yourself hate the Stuarts so much? Why have this obsession with crediting others for their efforts and martyrdom? Lord Loxley 06:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're stretching the usual Jacobite opposition to the traditional view of history a tad far. I would make a few factual corrections (they had different currencies, religions, and politics), but whether or not the British Isles could be interepreted as having been one country is immaterial to the most pertinent issue: that of Wikipedia policy.

No, I'm just supporting tradition and precedent vs experimentation and revisionism.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to adopt the accepted (traditional, populist, Hanoverian, Germanic, aristocratic: whatever you want to call it) view as fact as a starting point. Then, if there is significant public or academic debate on the issue, the article ought to present the positions taken by the major participants in as fair and even-handed a manner as possible, giving minority views weight in the article proportional to their weight in the debate. In this case, the traditional (and over-whelming) view is that the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed by the Act of Union 1707. As the opposing view is one of limited popularity, it would be worthy of a brief section, possibly with deeper coverage at the article on the Union of the Crowns, James I of England, Whig history, or another suitable article.

There are two fundamental POVs here; both should be represented, for the dissent from the current mantra of state is held by a significant amount of subjects and former subjects in America and Ireland especially.

On the issue of the Kingdom of England arms, I find myself agreeing; I cannot for the life of me explain why the Tudor arms are used, given that the Kingdom of England existed until 1707. However, if one argues that the Kingdom of Great Britain began in 1603, that means that there was never a House of Stuart in the Kingdom of England, so the Stuarts' arms cannot be used in that article. Bastin 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Union arms and Union flag have existed since James; those are the first symbols of the United Kingdom between England and Scotland (with France and Ireland duly represented, as they are in Canada to the present day). The "Union of Great Britain and Ireland" is and has always been contested by the Irish commonfolk, whom objected to a previous union having undue weight on Irish affairs. Democracy by weight of the populace and geopolitical advantage; oh, the Irish recall how fair and humanist that was on the part of the British as begun under the Ulster Plantation. The Presbyterians hated (still do; Ian Paisley) Catholics more than the Anglicans had, whom could have cared less just as long as they had the upper hand. [1] and [2] Lord Loxley 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well if you've silenced yourself, I guess there's nothing to discuss. Lord Loxley 07:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It was always my understanding of history that the state of Great Britain was not created until 1707, but of course had its roots in James being crowned King of England and Ireland and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Protectorate etc. The two countries obviously shared one monarch, like Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia do today, but for example the Scots parliament being able to withdrew troops, but not Royal Scots Navy, during War of the Spanish Succession highlights the independence, to some degree, of both states at the time. Benson85 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have described the understanding of 99.999% of us... Derek Ross | Talk 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In that era, government was determined by the Sovereign and not the subjects. The idea that it was Parliament, was controversial yet unopposed in its own time (the Whigs had almost all the reins of control; opposition was problematic). The struggles for Dutch independence from the Habsburgs largely directed this course of events, at least in perceptions of who was supposed to be in power. Naturally, the accession of William van Orange-Nassau had the effect of presenting that (then) newfound belief about the nature of monarchs and the extent (or lack thereof) of their powers. Just because Parliament's demands eventually prevailed, there is this idea that their version of events should be the official presentation on the nature of the British government. They lived in an era when constitutional, parliamentary rule was barely heard of. Republicanism was new and this notion that Parliament was in charge of state was considered bold or impudent. Therefore, one must return to the social contexts and customs of the time. James provided the Union of two Kingdoms, but because Parliament seized power during the Civil War...the civil organs of state had been stripped from the Sovereign and the union of the monarchy was disrupted (in favour of a republican union) by who would have the power of legislation and other national government things. I'm not denying the prevailing winds of the Glorious Revolution; I'm putting the past in perspective of the events. Why should partisan POV triumphalism take precedent for historical interpretations as described here on the Wikipedia? The writers of Whig history gloss over James's rule and Charles's attempted rule by dismissing it as merely fascist and unrepresentative of the British government. It is really much more complicated than that. The Sovereign was not able to handle a United Kingdom without delegating some powers to the civil service; the notion of Divine Right and absolutism was impractical in such a large and varied landscape such as Great Britain. I'm not arguing for the bad choices James or Charles made; I'm just showing that they were the ones with full jurisdiction on their United Kingdom until the Civil War, when the power shifted to Parliament. They concocted the notion that the Sovereign committed treason, when they were the ones who goaded him to the war and set his head on the block. It was turning the United Kingdom into a United Republic. The situation was turned upside down.

I have sympathies for both the Royal Family and Parliament; they were both right--but that is why the UK turned neither into a republic nor an absolutist state. Each idea or plan was impractical, for the oppositional forces would have annihilated the island and the land would have been seized violently from outer forces. The Realm was weakened by division, so the leaders chose to delegate a choice as to whom would fit a relatively neutral monarch unaffected by biases. Unfortunately, that choice led to Ireland's unsuccessful secession from the community. These are just events described as they happened. It appears that the Whigs wish for there to have never been a record of an Absolutist State, for they always make the charge that other nations have that "shame"--notoriously the political enemies of Parliament whom were sometimes allied with the British monarchy in their disputes with Parliament, especially over religious disputes (Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Calvinism). The fact is, the United Kingdom was formed as an absolutist state without the consent of Parliament--that's the point, the inability to oppose the Sovereign is absolutism and they had no power on the matter until they came up with ideas on how during the reign of Charles. During the reign of James, each Parliament was still bigoted against eachother as "foreigners". They vied for control and the location of the royal court; they were later upset that James forced uniformity upon the whole realm and made them fight eachother by fusing the realms without their advice on how to do it. The Parliaments resisted sharing power and encroachment on their offices, while James didn't care and tried to get them to work with one another. It was his realm, after all. They didn't like that and because the government splintered upon the death of Charles (Scots did not consent to the English regicides, although they had united in opposition to Charles's policies), there is a real sense of inconsistency in the Union until 1707--but that does not mean it did not exist. It was de jure in existence, even if not de facto in existence. That is the "difference" between the Union of the Crowns and Union of the Parliaments. One might say that the two kingdoms were not fully united until the Union with Ireland (which never fully united with Britain, as it hadn't with England either in previous times), when each profited from the exploitation and eviction of Irish Catholics by the Protestant Ascendancy and were more interested in taking out their frustrations on them instead.

Lord Loxley 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Lord of the Treasury

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

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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the Acts of Union do mention 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' in many places, they never state that there is either a long form or a short form; only the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 has ever differentiated between the two. Thus, one must rely on the informal use of the short form; from 1707 until 1801, 'Great Britain' was used as the short form in all but name (i.e. Parliament of Great Britain, Peerdom of Great Britain, etc), whereas, after 1801, the unofficial short form transformed into 'United Kingdom', before it was codified in 1927. Of course, if one views the Acts of Union as a 'constitution' for the new state, one could make a good argument, since 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is not mentioned once in the Acts whatsoever.

I happen to agree that the actual name of the state was 'United Kingdom of Great Britain', but that's neither here nor there, since most historians (and the Wikipedia convention) take the opposition view. Thus, the article ought to reflect the prevailing (although not consensus) opinion that the country's name was 'Kingdom of Great Britain', whilst explaining the debate in a manner that is proportionate to the discussion. Bastin 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Most historians view the long form name of the country as the Kingdom of Great Britain? Oh really. Could you please quote those historians that do support this view. Frankly I have not seen ANY historians espousing this view whatsoever.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well JTD is a historian, so if you haven't seen any historians espousing this view whatsoever, read this discussion page and you will see him espousing the view at some length. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

British Parliament

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

Parliament of England

Parliament of Scotland

Parliament of Ireland

Parliament of Great Britain

Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/n/Talk%7EKingdom_of_Great_Britain_9758.html"

Category: Unassessed former country articles