Jump to content

Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.175.53.239 (talk) at 21:44, 20 April 2012 (rmv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Role of Ireland - post 1707 union

I understand that Ireland was not part of the British union until 1801, but what, if any involvement did Britain have on Irish polotics? Was Ireland a truly free state in these years? Ive read Ireland refered to as a kind of protectorate of Britain during the 100 years after 1707, is this true?

I think their should be some sort of paragraph explaining the Irish role in the Kingdom Of Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.216.26 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the eighteenth century was the most glorious of all centuries for British occupation - oops, rule - in Ireland. The Irish were dispossessed from all their land (except bogland), their religon banished (legally), all their pilgrimage sites destroyed (except Lough Derg which remained open because Protestants ran the boat bringing thousands of pilgrims to the island- you couldn't invent this stuff). This was the century of the Penal Laws. Civilisation triumphed over the wilde Irishe, the superstitious, irrational popish natives. Dublin became one of the most fashionable places in Europe with Greco-Roman (oops, sorry! Georgian) architecture illuminating the once barbarous town. Yes, of course those bitter Paddies would say that no native Irish Catholics (90% of the population) were allowed in parliament and that there was in fact a British sectarian herrenvolk apartheid state in operation in 18th century Ireland... but the glory of Britain should not be undermined by those sort. Anyway, onwards to Iraq and Afghanistan for the latest selfless British experiments in civilisation! 86.42.99.141 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The poster above seems to have a "chip on his shoulder", and is not a helpful contribution. I do reckon something more is needed. Ireland at this time was under the same King as that of Great Britain and there was a strong influence, as there had been ever since the Norman expansion into Ireland in the 1100s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.183.252 (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 January 1801

Why do people keep on insisting on putting 31 December 1800 as the termination date of the Kingdom of Great Britain? Don't let the fact that 1 January 1801 is the first day of a century fool you - it's a date like any other (e.g. 1 May 1707), and if it's the legal starting date for any particular entity - which it is - it's also the legal termination date of the previous entity. The was no "gap" in other words, no matter how instantaneous. ðarkuncoll 01:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i like the name billy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.177.165 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New History section

I don't think that the new section recently added regarding the union flag is necessary and should be removed. It doesn't even cover the period. See here for the edit. Any objections to it's removal? Bjmullan (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. this talk page is 106 kilobytes long, and spans 8 years 2002-2010. Almost every contribution, and the article itself questions the historical origin of the term; "The Kingdom of Great Britain". The new history section answered all of these questions, with a cited encyclopedic verbatim quote of the 1606 proclamation by King James I, stating the origin of this term "Kingdom of Great Britain" as 1606. The article itself, (about the historical kingdom, before the Act of Union 1800), is incorrect by stating the year of 1707, as the origin of the term; "Kingdom of Great Britain". Moreover, the article is virtually empty (a stub) compared with other articles, as such, I have re-instated the "History section", with a new header. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that it is out of place and the long quote is not required. What about the following as a compromise, which is incorporating your opening paragraph into the Name section? Bjmullan (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 12 April 1606, a Proclamation of James I of England, by Orders in Council first stated the term: Kingdome of Great Britaine. This proclamation, ordering an amalgamation of the English and Scottish flags, initiated the design of the current Union Flag, and also the term; Kingdom of Great Britain. Occasionally, the term is given the alternative name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which is often shortened to United Kingdom. There is substantial debate over whether the latter name is acceptable.[1] The Treaty of Union refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in several places: it is argued that the word "United" is only an adjective, and not part of the style, citing the subsequent Acts of Union themselves, which explicitly state the name of the new nation: that the states of England and Scotland were "united into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".[2]
Hi Bjmullan, thank you for your suggested compromise, which is most acceptable. I agree that the full-quote is not particularly necessary, as I can insert a re-direct to the Union Flag – History section. May I further suggest that the (History section) remain, as I may expand this later, with references from the original text where the Quote came from? I also think the (Ref: This term was later used in the Acts of Union 1707.) should be included due to its historical significance. May I also seek your opinion as to the anomalies in the rest of the Article? (The Kingdom of Great Britain - in existence from 1707 to 1801.)(1603/6 to 1801?) – (Monarchs Anne (1707–1714))(James I?) – (Historical era 18th century)(C17th?) – (Preceded by: Kingdom of England c. 927–1 May 1707)(1603/6?) - (Territory of the Kingdom of Great Britain)(what date?). Once again, thank you for your interest, and your welcome suggestions on this important Quote. Many Regards (don’t shoot the messenger -) Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you do the suggested edit and we will take it from there. Bjmullan (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I.ve written a new (1603) version of 'Kingdom of Great Britain' in my sandbox User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (f). What about this (header) as a compromise, which is incorporating the paragraph into the Name section? Stephen2nd (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now changed this to: User:Stephen2nd/Kingdom of Great Britain 1603-1714‎. I'm requesting comments etc, prior to it becoming a new Article. Then, I will be re-directing all of the (prior) re-directs on the Quote etc. Please feel free to edit this version (Kingdom of Great Britain) accordingly. Thank you for your comments, to date. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I've now written and launched Kingdom of Great Britain 1603-1714‎, as this New and old Article are being compared etc; (See below) I will temporarily remove my Quote edit, as per your original request.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved, lacking consensus to do so. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Great Britain → Kingdom of Great Britain 1714-1801 — To avoid confusion with the article Kingdom of Great Britain 1603-1714. Kingdom of Great Britain would be replaced by a disambiguation page. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is confusion really likely? The Kingdom of Great Britain was legally established in 1707; prior to that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were separate legal entities, with the only union between them being a union of the crowns. Your proposal would seem to give undue weight to James' proclamation over real-politic. An alternative would be to rename the (new) article Kingdom of Great Britain 1603-1714 to something like "Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland" (or something shorter and less unwieldy!) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historians don't consider it to have been a 'Kingdom of Great Britain', so, indeed, that other article ought to be renamed and rewritten. This one is just fine as it is. Bastin 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move. This article really ought to be called 'United Kingdom of Great Britain'. There is too much resistance to that change, but this article describes a sovereign state which existed for a known period of time. The other (brand new) article seems to be about the joint monarchy as mentioned by TFOWR. If the new article is needed at all, it should have a title that does not imply it is the name of a sovereign state, such as Monarchy of England and Scotland 1603-1707. But I suspect the article is superfluous and all the sourced material is already contained elsewhere. Sussexonian (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move/renaming: (Proposer argument: Re: Confusion between the two Articles in question.)

This (KoGB) states: This article is about the historical kingdom, before the Act of Union 1800 with Ireland. The original (KoGB+) was in existence from James I, who was the 1st King of Great Britain; ie. of the (KoGB+), as legislated by English and Scottish parliaments. This is a verifiable historical fact, which should not be suppressed, by later 1707+ propaganda.

This present Article is about the (KoGB from 1707), which denies the existence of this (KoGB+), based solely on a creation of a “1707 British Parliament”, ie. by changing the “English Parliament”, to a “British Parliament”, and abolishing the Scottish Parliament. IMO, this should define (KoGB 1707-1800), according to the 1707 Union of Parliaments. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move and rename: The Kingdom of Great Britain was legally established in 1707 by two Acts of Union (despite several prior attempts at union). Prior to 1707 the Kingdom of Great Britain was a style used by James I after the Union of the Crowns, with no basis in law. The Kingdom as it existed between 1707 and 1801 is much better known than the Royal style which co-existed with the Kingdoms of England and Scotland prior to 1707. TFOWRpropaganda 15:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[14 June 2006: (1603-1707)] The reason why years (1603-1717), and James –> Anne were originally removed from this Article was because it used to state (below header): This article is about the historical state called the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800). For information about its modern successor state, see the main article: United Kingdom.
Irrelevant of Wiki-Editors political, historical, or personal POVs, this is an encyclopedia. The reason why this article should again be called: Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800). Is because there is now a new Article: Kingdom of Great Britain (1603-1714). Wikepedia users, should always have a democratic choice to study all historical eras, without bias. Stephen2nd (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Retaining the current title for the primary topic in no way infringes users' "democratic choice" to study all historical eras, and I consider the implication of non-neutrality less than ideal. TFOWRpropaganda 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kingdom of Great Britain

"Kingdom of Great Britain"? Where did this term originate? I'll wager it didn't originate in Great Britain! Please supply evidential support or rename it "Great Britain". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spolky (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much a British name, stemming from the Acts of Union 1707. Bastin 06:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Act of Union 1707 clearly use United Kingdom of Great Britain (in other words not Kingdom of Great Britain). So United is formally a part of the long-form Name of the Country (1707-1800). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - this nonsense should be changed - I should also point out that James I and VI called himself James I of Great Britain long before the Act of Union, as did his his heirs. Great Britain was regulalrly referred to prior to 1707 when talking about the common interest of the English, Scots and Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.111.183 (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Sorry for the typo.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Quote from [1] "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [2] - please note the bit "..of the said United Kingdom..." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The same discussion has taken place at Talk:British_people#Kingdom_of_Great_Britain. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wales

How come it is not mentioned in this article as part of the kingdom?93.172.178.226 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wales was part of the Kingdom of England. Bastin 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
By the 18th century Wales was so much part of England that no one could be sure whether Monmouthshire was in England or in Wales, it made no practical difference. (We can compare this with the integration of Cornwall into England.) Taking 93.172.178.226's point, I can see that it would be a good idea to cover the position of Wales rather more plainly. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Capitalizing the "K" of Kingdom of Great Britain

The issue discussed on this page (and appearing in the first line of the article describing "Kingdom of Great Britain" as less correct) is anachronistic. "Official names" of countries is a relatively modern convention. Indeed, the various British/UK Acts of Union where one of the first legislative attempts to make "official" a country's name. Previously, it rested on the title of the ruler ("King of etc...") There is no declaration of the Kingdom of France at this time. The same argument could be used that the kingdom of the Bourbons was the kingdom of France (less correctly the Kingdom of France)! It's trying to be falsely pedantic. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DeCausa. I don't understand what you are saying, but whatever you are intending to say, the fact of the matter is that the name of the state created in 1707 by the merger of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland was 'Great Britain' - it was not named 'The Kingdom of Great Britain'. Indeed, if a descriptor is required, 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' is a more accurate term that 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. For some reason, I am not being allowed to correct the current version that implies that the name of the state was Kingdom of Great Britain', which it clearly wasn't! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, find a state from that period named "Kingdom of X" in the way you want will be rare. It's an anachronistic point of view - it's a modern concept. France is referred to as the Kingdom of France. You won't find an "official designation" declaring it the Kingdom of France. It was a Kingdom because France had a King. Official designations, such as they were, attached to the titles of the ruler, not to the state. The Italian republics were an exception to this. The 1801 Acts were some of the first declarations that included "Kingdom" (or "United Kingdom" in that case) as part of the name of the state. That's why I said that to make a distinction between "Kingdom of Great Britain" and "kingdom of Great Britain" is anachronistic false pedantry. (P.S On the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" question, it is quite clear from both Acts of Union and the Treaty of Union that "united" is being used as a simple adjective rather than an attempt to "name" the state.) DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what do base the assertion that United is only an adjective (i.e., united)... well? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change to Great Britain (historical state)

Hello. I would like to suggest that since 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is not the proper name of the state created in 1707 (the proper name being 'Great Britain', as made clear in the Acts of Union), the title opf this article should be changed to Great Britain (historical state). This will be clearly different from the Great Britain article that deals with the island of Great Britain. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this as I created the page Great Britain (historical state) as a redirect, thinking it would help, and now I realise that I can't change the article name onto one that already exists. If this idea seems helpful, can anyone help do it? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Great Britain (kingdom)? JonChappleTalk 14:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be contrary to Wikipedia policies to change the name of the article. See WP:COMMON NAME. The official name of the state is irrelevant, if it is generally known as the "Kingdom of Great Britain", which it is. For example there are 30,600 results from Google books for "Kingdom of Great Britain" minus "United" (to take out references to the UK). The common name is the one which must apply. "Great Britain (historical state)" gets no hits. In any case, as I said before it's incorrect to claim that the "Kingdom of Great Britain" was not its official name and is based on a falsely pedantic reading of Art1 of the Acts of union. DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misrepresenting what Spiritofstgeorge is saying re: (historical state)—he's not saying it's part of the name, just a description. Wikipedia often uses descriptors in brackets to disambiguate page titles, so I don't see a problem there. As for the Google Book test, it's impossible to compare the hits for 'Kingdom of Great Britain' compared to 'Great Britain' meaning just the kingdom, as there'll obviously be hits for the geographical location mixed in. JonChappleTalk 15:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a bad idea. 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is not the proper name of the state but neither is 'Great Britain (historical state)'. So all you seem to want is to change the name of the article from one title which is not the name of the state to a less clear title which is not the name of the state. 'Kingdom of Great Britain may not be the name of the state but it is a perfectly reasonable name for the article about the state. Certainly a much clearer one than 'Great Britain (historical state)' or anything else involving parentheses. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the name of the state was Great Britain. The "(kingdom)"/"(state)"/whatever bit is just a descriptor, it's not part of the title. For want of a better example off the top of my head, the band Humble Pie are at Humble Pie (band) (not The Rock Band Humble Pie). JonChappleTalk 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing of the "official name" of the state is pure WP:OR based on an interpretation by editors here of a primary source i.e. the Acts. There is not one reliable source i.e a secondary source supporting it. I've just deleted the OR from the Name section of the article. and added in a sourced statement at the begining of the section giving context for the other names put forward. DeCausa (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Call it Great Britain, or Kingdom of Great Britain, or United Kingdom of Great Britain. Oi. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello DeCausa. On what basis do you insert kingdom of Great Britain? Well? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fine. That's not the reverts you were making. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeCausa ... I changed "kingdom of Great Britain" to "kingdom of Great Britain" did I not? Well? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes you did, which contradicts your post of 22:13. DeCausa (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cornwall

I don't have strong opinions on this one, but Cornwall has been listed with Wales was a part of the Kingdom of England for the purpose of this article. In Wales its clear via the Law in Wales act etc. For Cornwall its more problematic. If my memory is right it was not a part of the Saxon Kingdoms, but was assimilated with the Anglo-Norman conquest. So its a marginal case. I've restored the default position for the moment, but we should agree if it is there or not. --Snowded TALK 09:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add the United States as a successor state

The United States succeeded from the Kingdom of Great Britain, shouldn't we add it to the successor states in the infobox? --Gimelthedog (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The territory that formed the original United States was never part of the British state, it was a set of overseas colonies. JonCTalk 05:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. The thirteen colonies were colonies and never a part of Great Britain. --RA (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Rough guide to British history". 29 April 2006. The Times. URL accessed 13 May 2006.
  2. ^ Act of Union 1707, Article 1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain&oldid=488399021"