Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.	History Portal Geography Portal Atlas Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ). Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WP Former Countries - Things to do: Open tasks for WikiProject Former countries      Edit Correct links: Correct any wikilinks that you find anywhere on Wikipedia where the link is to the wrong version of the state. Some examples of bad links: Referring to the former Free City of Lübeck (an independent entity for 711 years), but the link goes to the modern city of Lübeck. Referring to Napoleon's France, where the link instead goes to modern France. Create redirects: If the article for the correct state does not yet exist, create a redirect to the nearest existing article (if possible) and place {{WPFC|class=Needed}} on the redirect's talk page. Whether or not a redirect has been created, list the wanted article below under "Needed". Article improvement After performing any of these tasks, re-rate the entry via the WPFC banner, and remove the article from the relevant list. Expand: Confederation of the Rhine, Straits Settlements, Belgian Congo, Free City of Lübeck, Kingdom of Ireland, North German Confederation, Spanish East Indies Stubs: Adamawa Emirate, Baranya-Baja Republic, Kingdom of Redonda, Piratini Republic, United States of Colombia Needed: Kingdom of Bavaria Nyasaland Assess: Anjouan, Austrian Empire, German East Africa, Orange Free State Articles requiring particular elements After providing the requested element, please remove the relevant tag from the article's WPFC banner and remove the article from this list. Flag: Alta California, Baranya-Baja Republic, Bishopric of Liège, Duchy of Lucca, Lordship of Ireland, Mexican Empire Coat of Arms: Adamawa Emirate, Anjouan, Baranya-Baja Republic, Confederation of the Equator, Congo Free State, New Spain, West Florida Map: Baranya-Baja Republic, California Republic, Republic of Manitoba Venezuela (second republic) Infobox: Anjouan, Austrian Empire, Baranya-Baja Republic, Belgian Congo, Orange Free State Quality watch: 5 FA-Class former country articles - 7 GA-Class former country articles.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Legacy 3 Royal Arms 4 1921 or 1922 5 Relationship between UKGBI and UKGBNI

[edit] NPOV

My edit of the 1st paragraph was reverted, but I am reverting it back for the following reasons:

• I think saying "suppression" about the 1789 rebellion is POV, since it is clearly from the Irish point of view.
• The appropriate Wikipedia article is called "Irish Rebellion of 1798". There is no point having a redirect here.
• Calling the Irish Parliament "exclusively Anglican" sounds like an Irish complaint about not being represented, so it seems a bit POV. If someone wanted to know the makeup of the Parliament, they can just click the link.
• "vote itself out of existence" is a silly phrase.
• "new-found unionism" is a silly phrase, and slightly POV.

If someone has different ideas, please contribute to the discussion here. --JW1805 03:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree.

• Without reference to the parliament's composition, the impression is given that union was a popular move among the broader Irish population.
• "Vote itself out of existence" is exactly what that parliament did. The London parliament did'nt abolish it, it abolished itself.
• Their unionism was new-found, previously most Irish MPs had opposed union.
• "Silly" is a silly word to use in describing these phrases. If you think they're badly worded, rephrase them.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit? I tried to reword the opening to be a bit better, and added a statement in the Controversy section about how the Union was not popular. This section can be expanded to give more details. --JW1805 16:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

I added this section but it still remains inadequate. I think a paragraph about the relationship between the two govenments is needed (Both historical and present day). I think I also so heard once about proposals for a joint british-irish ownership/parliament or something of the like. Perhaps that could get a mention as well. josh 21:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Arms

British Coat of Arms |right The Royal Arms shown is the current version, with the St Edward's Crown adopted by Elizabeth II in 1953. For this article, it is likely incorrect and an older version, probably using a Tudor-style crown is needed. I've had trouble finding information about the styling — the best so far is on [FOTW] — let alone a picture.

• We could use the shield- (shown in the history section- Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. Astrotrain 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems a good idea - I'll do it and see what it's like. Bazza 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the later version of the arms adopted in 1837 when Hanover left the personal union. This was the arms used in the bulk of the time the UK GB and I existed. Astrotrain 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. Bazza 17:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrotrain seemed to have forgotten the conversation above and changed the Hanover one (in use at the start of, but replaced during existance of, UK of GB & I) with a modern Elizabethan era one, not appropriate at all. I've reverted this but would be more than happy to see the Hanover one replaced with one suitable for the period 1801-1922. Bazza 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I forgot this conversation!- I replaced with the shield- what u think ? Astrotrain 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks better - nicely done. Bazza 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1921 or 1922

Anonymous user 82.40.101.110 changed most (but not all!) expiry dates for UKoGB&I from 1922 to 1921, citing the Anglo Irish Treaty. My understanding, though, is that the treaty may have been signed on 6-Dec-1921 but did not come into effect until 6-Dec-1922. So the old UK existed until that date. I've reverted 1922 back to 1921 and annotated the article as such. Bazza 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship between UKGBI and UKGBNI

The article is phrased such that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UKGBI) ceased to exist in 1921/2, and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UKGBNI) is a separately constituted successor state (analogous to the change from Kingdom of Great Britain to UKGBI in 1801).

My understanding of the constitutional position is that UKGBI and UKGBNI are in fact one and the same state, and that the change in the 1920s was purely a redefinition of the state's title following the creation of the Irish Free State and the resultant change in the UK's territory. This could be evidenced by:

- UK parliaments are numbered from 1801, not 1922 - There was no immediate change in the status of UKGBI, the titles Act being passed some 5 years later - The 1927 act renamed the country's parliament and the style of the then King, but did not explicitly reconstitute the country. - There were no elections held immediately following the creation of the Irish Free State in December 1922 (next election was 1924), or the change of title in 1927 (next election was 1929)in order to specifically create a parliament/constituent assembly for a new British state. There were elections in November 1922, but there was nothing out of the ordinary in that, as the parliament of the time had been sitting since December 1918.

I am being frightfully pedantic, I know, but I would value anybody's thoughts on the matter.

Petecollier 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Redefinitions of a state's title tend to reflect changes both in territory and government. Here we not only have reduced territory but the negation of the reason the Kingdom was formed back in 1801. Simply ignoring it as you suggest would be inaccurate. User:Dimadick

Petecollier is entirely correct. In fact, I was looking at this talk page to propose the exact same change, only to find that it had been proposed earlier today!

I believe that the form that this article should take is similar to that of West Germany; it has its own article, uses {{Infobox Former Country}}, talks of it as clearly belonging to the past, and covers its economy, culture, history, and so on in the same way that it would cover any truly extinct country. Thus, the introduction would begin:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1 January 1801 until the 6 December 1922. It was formed by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself having been a merger of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland) and the Kingdom of Ireland. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ended upon the independence of five-sixths of Ireland, when the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty came into effect, creating the Irish Free State. As a result of this secession, and to reflect its current territorial extent, the country has since been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a title formalised by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927."

I have made other small changes in the above, including mentioning the RaPTA, but I think the only controversial change is that proposed by Petecollier. Bastin 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The 1801 Act of Union is not negated since Northern Ireland remains as part of the UK. However I don't think, as perhaps Dimadick fears, that this section of the UK's history should be ignored or merged into the main UK article. The UKGBI is worthy of its own article beyond a doubt, and that article by its very nature needs to be historical. My corncern was, that the article as it stands is factually inaccurate and as such should be edited wherever it refers to the "ending" of the UK or to the UKGBI's "successor states". There has been no break in constitutional continuity in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, therefore the UK has never "ceased to exist", despite the change in title. Since the UK exists to this day, the use of term "sucessor state," even in reference to the IFS/ROI is similarly incorrect. I am not familiar with the West Germany article, but the analogy is perhaps a good one, albeit (West) Germany increased the territory subject to its Basic Law, rather than decreased it as in the UK's case.

I don't want to make any major changes without prior consensus, but I would propose the following opening paragraph, in place of the current:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1 January 1801 until 12 April 1927. It was formed by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself having been a merger of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland) and the Kingdom of Ireland. Following Irish independence on 6 December 1922, when the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty came into effect, the name continued in official use until it was changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927. Those parts of the island of Ireland which seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1922 today constitute the Republic of Ireland."

While we are all revelling im my pedancy, the section Legacy cites a complete political independence for Ireland from 1922. Not so. The British Government retained the right to advise the King on Irish political appointments until the 1927 Act. There then remained extremely close ties until the new Irish constitution in 1937. The last few political ties weren't finally broken until the Republic was created in 1949.

I have not looked at the UKGBNI article, but that might need a couple of tweaks to coordinate with the changes I feel are necessary here?

Petecollier 04:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)