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 and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Proposition for Merger with the article on the modern UK

It is really a creation of Wikipedia this seperation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is supposed to represent the UK with southern Ireland and without it, but the names don't accurately fit this. southern Ireland succeded as the Irish Free State in 1922, but it was five years later, in 1927, that the formal name of the UK was changed from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was a act of paliament ment to acknowledge the change. It certainly doesn't warrant two seperate Wikipedia articles. The state simply changed it name, it stayed the same, contrary to what the article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shows in the info box above the map, the state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland didn't split into the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As has been said, for five years, 1922 - 1927, the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland existed alongside each other. I hope after this I have made it clear there is no technical reason why they should be seperate. Now for a final note: yes, it may be a convenient way to distinguish between pre-Irish Free State UK and post-Irish Free State UK, but, as the five year gap shows, it is not accurate. Since there is no other reason why the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be seperate, they should be merged into one United Kingdom article - with a note that it changed its formal name in 1927. Really what we have at the moment is one state with two seperate articles, documenting its history pre 1927 and post 1927 as I hope I have demonstrated, this is illogical and should be resolved, so I would like to put forward the proposition that this article be merged with the main UK article, to be reviewed and discussed by all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertask (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[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.

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)

[edit] Secession

Obviously UKGBNI follows, but what to are the "Irish" secessors?

Two ways to go:

  1. Irish Free State - just ignore the Irish Republic and Southern Ireland
  2. Irish Republic & Southern Ireland - in British and Irish constitutional theory these are the next states in secession.

I'm siding with the second way as, in strict historical terms, Southern Ireland seceded from the UK then it established the Free State (the "British way") or the Irish Republic seceded from the UK then it established the Free State (the "Irish way").

Southern Ireland seceded de jure. The Irish Republic seceded de facto. It was the 3rd Dáil of the Irish Republic (or "Provisional Parliament" in British constitutional terms) and the 1st Parliament of Southern Ireland that ratified the Anglo-Irish Agreement to instantiate the Free State - the Dáil ratifying it in December 1921, and the Parliament ratifying it in January 1922.

Thus, skipping these does not give a true telling (in anyone's history) of the secession order of Irish states. --sony-youthpléigh 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ireland did not secede, and was not an independent country, but an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with home rule. Hence, just as Northern Ireland wasn't a successor, neither was Southern Ireland. I would, therefore, suggest the former of the two options. The latter would suggest that it split into the Irish Republic and the Irish Free State, which is far worse than the present situation. Bastin 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Northern/Southern Ireland were both colonial-type administrations along the vein of Canada or Australia. See Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920#Structures_of_the_governmental_system. Reserved matters were very limited (defence, foreign affairs, etc.). We're not talking home rule like in Scotland or Wales, more like Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. (And yes, technically this was the case too in Northern Ireland until 1972 although the parliament there never wanted to exploit its freedom to pursue/express independence - instead using them to remain under London rule - its clear that the Southern Government did.) --sony-youthpléigh 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't the same as Canada or Australia (or the Crown dependencies) because they weren't (or aren't) part of the United Kingdom. For example, they weren't (or aren't) entitled to send MPs to Westminster, whereas Southern Ireland was. Bastin 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. You're right. Sorry. Moment of madness. --sony-youthpléigh 19:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Blood Hell.

The Irish Republic (1916-1921) was a declared State.

The Government of Northern Ireland was provisional Home-Rule assembly (not a country).

The Government of Southern Ireland was provisional Home-Rule assembly (not a country).

The former voted explicitly to remain within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (the country), and the latter voted to seceed (to form an Independent country).

Since the stronger power (i.e., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) granted the pathway to independence its legal framework must be respected and adhered to. The "Republican" view is secondary and is not the valid interpretation.

Timeline

Various local Realms (pre-1170),

The Lordship of Ireland (1170-1541),

The Kingdom of Ireland (1541-1801),

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921)

The Government of Southern Ireland (not a country), (1921-1922),

The Irish Free State (1922-1937),

Eire (1937-1949),

The Republic of Ireland (post-1949).


ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since the stronger power (i.e., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) granted the pathway to independence its legal framework must be respected and adhered to. The 'Republican' view is secondary and is not the valid interpretation." (Edited to remove emphasis) - Is this Wikipedia WP:POLICY?
Please read prior discussions before posting a whole lot of stuff in bold and blue. The matter had been sorted. --sony-youthpléigh 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello Sony-Youth. The Name of the Country is placed in blue so people will not confuse the long-form name with the short-form name (i.e, the whole Dominon of Canada versus just Canada debate).

Next, in 1921 the British Forces battling the original Irish Republican Army (IRA, not todays terrorists) were faced with a decision,

(i). cut the "Anglo-Irish Agreement" of December 6, 1921,
(ii). escalate the "tactics" in Ireland to Boer War (1899-1902) methods.

I assume that most people see the wisdom in choice (i).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange answer to my question. Or was it an answer? Who can tell, eh? In any case, post 1937 only one state has existed. The long and short form is simply Ireland (or Éire if you prefer, though its unusual to do in English so except to disambiguate the state from the island between its creation and 1949). The Republic of Ireland Act did not create a new state or change the name of the existent one. You could also add the Confederacy and the Commonwealth too. Also don't forget that the Gaelic order (sorry, bad page, little time) was by-far-and-away the de facto polity except for the Pale until the end of the 16th century. See here.
Anyway, my question was about what you wrote about "stronger power", "pathways to independence" and one-view-or-another being "secondary," "not valid" etc. I just wonder if this is new WP:POLICY? I hadn't heard of it before. Thanks. --sony-youthpléigh 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sony-Youth. Brass-tacks ....Eire (1937-1949) was the Irish spelling of Ireland. It is a point-in-fact that the Irish leaders were pissed off at us "Anglos" totally accepting and refering to the "26 Counties" as Eire.

It was NOT an English word, so us "Anglos" said "Yaa whatever, they could call it the Peoples Republic of Shamrockland, who cares?"

Additionally, your "be-knighted nation" started the idiotic practice of refering to itself only via its short-form name. You see, Eire (or ....Ireland) is by definiton, only a short-form name. Your "blessed-little-land" has NO OFFICAL long-form name.

You dopes started this wholes mess eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodness! An even stranger answer this time around. Tá rud éigin mícheart leat, sílim. Chonaic mé go raibh fadhb agatsa leis freisin, a Bh. Fanfadh mé amach uaidh ar an chéad uair eile! --sony-youthpléigh 20:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stranger than the de-facto language of the Republic of Ireland being English?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

de jure (Article 8.2) --sony-youthpléigh 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope ... English is de-facto.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can split hairs. Depends on your dictionary (exclusive, not exclusive). But surely that "nope" doesn't mean you're denying it's je jure? --sony-youthpléigh 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


LOL! Ok ... ok. Peace :)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Peace :) --sony-youthpléigh 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The Irish Free State is the successor whatever way you look at it SI was a devolved state in the UK and the UK did not recognise the Irish Republic so that rules them out, and the only reason the UK of GB&I granted the pathway to independence as you put it was because their was a war and it lost. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the Anglo-Irish War (1918-1921) was inconclusive. The "peace" was a conditional one. If the Irish Republicans had won outright they would of had "the Republic" immediately (and the whole Island of Ireland).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the UK still lost 26 counties of Ireland because of the war it was hardly a case of the UK just deciding to let them go. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? The UK decided to allow the 26 Counties to vote to seceed after a very affect guerrila war by the IRA. The UK still could of chosen not to let them go and escalated to Boer War tactics in Ireland. The British forces were still strong enough to do this, but they did not want to pay the very high price.

Compare it to the American Civil War. The Union really had to stomp the Confederate States of America to conquer them. And the Confederates chose NOT to employ guerrila tactics after April 1865.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Who needs Boer War concentration camps when you have the Black and Tans --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Not the most ingratiating image – for the enemy that stood watch over the death of a million people and the fleeing of a million more as refugees, that forced 4 out of 5 of Irishmen and -women from their homes never to return, that slashed the population in half over 70 years, cutting the relative population of Ireland vis-à-vis England from 50% to 15%, that permanently pocked the demography of these islands – to be looking back over its shoulder at the 26 counties muttering something about concentration camps and scorched earth.
Of course, as Barry points out: whatever were the black and tans? why were 1 in 3 MPs for Ireland marked as fé ghlas ag Gallaibh ("imprisoned by the foreign enemy") at the sitting of the first Dail? As things were, we know that that policy didn’t work against the Boers either – not such a convincing victory - but when 50 years later there were still field hospitals lining the Irish border to treat British citizens fleeing their own government, you must ask:– do some people ever learn? --sony-youthpléigh 08:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1922/27 - Free State

First, this article doesn't really deal with a "former" country, as this country still exists, just without the 26 southern counties of Ireland. That's my reasoning for having 1922 as the date, it take it up to the period until the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Is there any reason other than the the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act to say it lasted longer?

Second, the Irish Free State seceded from this state. Granted, I screwed up on this one before, but giving only the current UK as the secession link is bizarre. --sony-youthpléigh 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The date that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland legally changed its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland was 1927, this is my reasoning for using that date, futhermore, I agree with you that it isn't really a former country, and this is my exact reason for not putting the Irish Free State on what you call the secession link, as it is not supposed to be a sucession link and sucessions shouldn't be on it. Only states that one state broke into should be on it. Since the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland didn't break up, the only logical thing to do it to link it as continuing only into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Supertask 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)