Talk:Acts of Union 1800

Comment by TD

I edited the section that was marked with an NPOV. Is it still unsatisfactory? --TD 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Acts of Parliament are dated according to the date they gained Royal Assent not their affectivve dates (for example, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 did not come into effect until 1921. The article has already renamed to "Act of Union 1800" from alternative versions.--Andrew L 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"The final passage of the Act in the Irish Parliament was achieved with substantial majorities, and was marked by mass bribery of Irish MPs by the British government"

The above quote from this article seems to me to be somewhat POV. Does anyone have a source for this? JiMternet 16:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=a&fn=/documents/aboutus/history/act_of_union.htm
 http://www.actofunion.ac.uk/actofunion.htm

In relation to the comment about 'mass bribery of Irish MPs', one source is Robert Kee's The Green Flag Vol. 1. In the 1989 Penguin edition I have to hand there is a quotation on page 158, which reads:

'This trade in inducements to vote was certainly a two-way one, and was conducted by the opposition just as vigorously as by the [Irish] government, though clearly the same resources were not available to them'

Signing Location

Is it not appropriate to mention the location where the Act was signed, namely Derrymore House, Bessbrook, Northern Ireland? And would it not also be appropriate to include a photograph of the building and location in question? I can edit and include these components if deemed necessary. Thanks,c-bro 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)c-bro

Absolutely. Feel free to put in that sort of information. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)}

"exhaulted"?

Can someone explain what the sentence "The Act was exhaulted by both the British and Irish parliaments" means? --Jfruh (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Most likely the author meant 'exalted', it's a mistake I see all too often. PGingell 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I don't even know what "exalted" would mean in this context. Is it some kind of technical term for the passage of a law? --Jfruh (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Royal assent

I've temporarily removed the following from the text:

The act received the royal assent on 1 August 1800.

Without specifying whether this the date of the British or the Irish Act, it's not really very useful information. Silverhelm 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Date of formation of the United Kingdom?

After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Please explain Mooretwin how using the correct name of a country instead of an unofficial one is confusing? As Ireland is correct and official you will have to justify your edit rather than the other way round. Otherwise, all I am thinking of is POV (intentional or not) is the reason behind your edit.Ιρλανδία (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The "correct name" is confusing because it is also:

• the name of the island
• and of the kingdom prior to the Act which is the subject of this article
• and of the jurisdiction following said Act and prior to partition

This article relates to all three of the above, therefore disambiguation is necessary. Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the others aren't disambiguated and there's no reason why ROI is the magical solution to the problem. Where is written in stone that its used for disambig? Looking at the edit now, both ROI and Ireland are misleading are neither are introduced in the intro. The paragraph needs to be rewritten, something like:

The Union With Ireland Act 1800 (i.e. the UK/British Act) was not finally repealed until the passing of independent Ireland's Statute Law Revision Act 1983.[4] The Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 was repealed in 1962.[5]

That is much clearer.Ιρλανδία (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ROI isn't misleading. It clearly refers to the Republic, which is the relevant entity when referring to the repeal in question. Mooretwin (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It misleadingly suggests its a name for the new entity. What is wrong with my new proposed edit? You have ignored it.Ιρλανδία (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is a name for the new entity, so there's no misleading involved! Mooretwin (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A. Please show where it says it is a name.

B. Please acknowledge my proposal. You are stonewalling.

Otherwise you're POV pushing.Ιρλανδία (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A. Wikipedia acknowledges it as a name - check out Republic of Ireland; as do hundreds of sources (check out Google); as does the ROI state itself - check out the Republic of Ireland Act 1948

B. I acknowledge it, but don't support it on the ground that Republic of Ireland succeeds in removing the ambiguity - "independent Ireland" retains some ambiguity for the uninformed reader.

Please desist from accusations in contravention of WP:AGF. It would be easy for me to level the same accusation against you. Mooretwin (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your A point is completely false. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, nowhere on google does it say ROI is a name and Republic of Ireland Act 1948 calls it a description, with the Irish government declaring that it not be used as a name. Your POV that ROI is a name has no ground.

It's not completely false. Google throws up loads of references to ROI. And a description is another word for a name.

So? Google, gives loads of references to province of northern ireland? Does that make that a name? description is another word for a name. You need English lessons son. Wayne Rooney does not equal Man United footballer. Very different things.

Well, yes, Northern Ireland is a name. And a name and a description (in the sense provided in the Republic of Ireland Act), far from being "very different", are actually very similar: Republic of Ireland is regularly used as an alternative name: including in this very encyclopaedia! Mooretwin (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How does independent Ireland retain ambiguity while a country under the name of ROI doesn't actually exist? There's an article under that name, it doesn't justify its use however. It is your job to do that and you have failed claiming its a name with absolutely no sources to back it up. Unless you actually properly discuss with facts instead of your "opinions", this discussion will be over very soon and I will input my perfectly good proposed edit as you have given no reason for me not to.Ιρλανδία (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It retains ambiguity because it refers to "Ireland", while the independent state only relates to part of Ireland. Easier just to use the established "ROI". which eliminates any possible confusion. Mooretwin (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That is still nonsensical. ROI refers to Ireland too! Independent Ireland the exact same on the basis of your argument.Ιρλανδία (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it does refer to Ireland, but the term "Republic of Ireland" is established and understood to refer only to part of Ireland, whereas "independent Ireland" is not a widely-used term and more likely to result in confusion. Granted, Southern Ireland would be clearer still, but better to use the established and understood term. What's the problem with it? Mooretwin (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have issues with the title of the WP article Republic of Ireland, take them to that article. Indeed, take them to the Task Force. Here is not the place for that discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly there is no need to mention it. In fact you are mentioning everything other than facts to as how why my proposed edit isn't acceptable.Ιρλανδία (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing "facts". Please comply with WP:AGF. Mooretwin (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If they are facts then please provide citation. Otherwise they are made up opinions/pov.Ιρλανδία (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So the elected parliament of the Republic of Ireland didn't pass an act to describe the country as the Republic of Ireland? You're erasing that from history? You're repeatedly contravening WP:AGF Mooretwin (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and clearly, you are going to push ROI no matter how much I justify a compromise edit with facts. I have completely justified this compromise edit and you are refusing to listen. I shall see if another editor comes in, if not I will be bold.Ιρλανδία (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The accusation in respect of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT could equally be made against you. You've failed to put forward an argument against Republic of Ireland (and therefore in favour of changing the text) other than simply stating and restating that "Ireland" is the "official name". The "official name", however, is ambiguous, therefore it is reasonable and appropriate to use the "official description", which is an established alternative name, and one without ambiguity. Mooretwin (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, as you didn't hear or pay attention to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAct_of_Union_1800&diff=248301457&oldid=248299634 Ιρλανδία (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are now edit-warring. There was no need to change the existing text and there is no consensus for such change. It is disingenuous to argue that there is "no consensus "to not input the text"". Plus you have inserted one of the most poorly-constructed sentences I have seen on Wikipedia. Please self-revert. Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is pretty much the exact as the one that was there in the first. If you would like to propose a solution that doesn't use the oncorrect and misleading ROI term then go ahead.Ιρλανδία (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Background

why is not even in one sentance the rebellion metioned which happened 2 years before the act and is a response of it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.156.77 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the sources i the article need a good lookm at.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812

I'm not sure what this line means: "When the union was finally passed in 1800, the British drove the process right through the war of 1812." Is it British English, using a term of art Americans aren't familiar with? Considering the Union was created in 1800/1801, the context of this sentence is not apparent. I hope someone with knowledge of the events can clarify this. Jnmwiki (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the 1812 part is vandalism. Per this diff, the previous version was "When the union was finally passed in 1800, the British drove the process." The IP added "right throw the war of 1812", which makes little sense even if one assumes good faith. Trolling through the history can often help clear things up, a little anyway. - BilCat (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm new at the "talk" section, although I've been making minor edits for some time. I appreciate the suggestion. Jnmwiki (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Act of Union 1800 → Acts of Union 1800 — There was more than one act involved. The plural "Acts" is clearly the correct name, it even says so in the first sentence on the page. McLerristarr (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

1800?

1800? WTF? The Act of Union was signed in 1801 86.170.160.171 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't, and there were two of them (British and Irish), passed by both parliaments in July and August 1800, as the text and the references in the 'Provisions' section clearly show. An act is dated from when it is passed, not when its provisions come into force. For example, the British Decimal Currency Act 1969 was passed in May 1969, and the Irish one in July 1969, but Decimal Day in both countries wasn't until 15 February 1971, allowing time for the combined Great British and Irish Public to say goodbye to thousands of years of thinking in twelves and twenties (and the idle rich in twenty-ones since 1717). However, there is no such thing as the 'Decimal Currency Act 1971', just as there was no 'Act of Union 1801', and there never has been.

Any reference to some imaginary 'Act of Union (1801)' (whether British or Irish) is therefore erroneous, and appears to stem from just this misconception; the fact that the provisions of the acts merely came into force on 1 January 1801 seems to have confused a large number of people. On Google Books, for example, 'Act of Union 1800' gets about 751 (correct) hits, generally referring to the act in some detail; and 'Act of Union 1801' gets about 273 results, typically encylopedic works or just mentioning it in passing. Another source of confusion is print articles with titles like 'The Irish Act of Union, 1801–2001'. On WP, to pick just two examples, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article currently refers to something called the 'Acts of Union, 1 January 1801'; and the title of History of Ireland (1691-1801) also bases itself on this error: it should be History of Ireland (1691-1800) to correctly precede History of Ireland (1801-1923).  Done

<aside>I quite like the contrast between the wording of Article I of the two 1800 Acts:

• "That Great Britain and Ireland shall upon Jan. 1, 1801, be united into one kingdom; and that the titles appertaining to the crown, &c. shall be such as his Majesty shall be pleased to appoint[.]"; (Westminster)
• "Great Britain and Ireland to be united for ever from 1 Jan. 1801." (Dublin) </aside> >MinorProphet (talk) (Missed a tilde) >MinorProphet (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Monarchy

<snip> Royal succession was broken when Henry VIII's heir died, and the entire subsequent history of the British monarchy is based on a series of illegitimate successions. There was no direct line of primogeniture succession since Henry VIII. The Tudors are themselves usurpers of the ancient Plantagenets. Queen Anne did not have issue. Queen Victoria's father was not king. The line of succession was numerously broken, and primogeniture was not remotely maintained. The "personal union" fiction is an unnecessary historical consideration. </snip>

I've snipped the above out of the article - if you want to rant about the legitimacy or otherwise of the British monarchy there are articles on them to do that! Also inheritance of title can be through other means than direct succession. The personal union is a legal fact, and the most obvious break - the Civil wars and Commonwealth followed by the "Glorious" revolution, which to some extent sets up the modern Irish divide - didn't even rate a mention in the above. Also Victoria came to the throne some 30 years after the Union. -Grible (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acts of Union 1800. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011192652/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0029/sched1.html to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0029/sched1.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Bribery

From Oireachtas:

In 1800 the Irish Parliament abolished itself when, after widespread bribery of members, it adopted the Act of Union, which came into effect from 1 January 1801.

I added the cn. If true and referenced, it should be in this article. --Error (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Irish Coat of Arms

The coat of arms of the Kingdom of Ireland used here is a work of artistic license (fictional). Ireland never had its own royal arms per se. There was a coat of arms issued under James I but it was rarely used. The arms used were the same as in England and Wales. Scotland did have its own version. Ireland did have its own heraldic badge and flags, but that is not the same thing. --IACOBVS (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Name and repealing

The "name" section says:

"Two acts were passed in 1800 with the same long title: An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. The short title of the act of the British Parliament is Union with Ireland Act 1800, assigned by the Short Titles Act 1896. The short title of the act of the Irish Parliament is Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, assigned by a 1951 act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and hence not effective in the Republic of Ireland, where it was referred to by its long title when repealed in 1962."

It is not clear to me what happened ... this is what I understand:

• The acts passed in 1800 with a long title.
• The name of the act was shortened by the British Parliament in 1896.
• The Northern Ireland Parliament shortened the name of the act in 1951.
• The name of the act was never shortened in the Republic of Ireland so it stayed in its long form until 1962 when it was repealed.

1. Is my understanding correct?

2. Considering the Irish Free State came about in 1922, why did it take 40 years for repealing the act in Ireland?

ICE77 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

A short title is a legally-valid alternative title; it does not replace the original. The Irish state got around to repealing this legislation in a tidying-up exercise. Functionally the Acts were largely undone in the process of Irish independence. SeoR (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

1. That is not what I am trying to understand. I'm after the sequence of events in chronological and geographical order, not the legality of shortening titles of acts. I did not raise the argument of a short-titled act superseding a long-titled act.

ICE77 (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)