![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
If I may tentatively enter this historical debate, as someone who is now a lawyer, but formerly a professional historian. As noted, part of the problem is the tendency to capitalize Certain Important Nouns, more pronounced by 1706 in Scotland than England, but that may be set aside and instead by looking, as a lawyer, for the answer in what the 1706 Treaty and 1706/1707 Acts of Union say, when compared with the 1800 Acts of Union. The former (in that order, original emphasis) say "forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN " / "forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain " / "for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain " whereas the latter say (British version first, Irish second) "for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " / "for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,” ". So, the legal answer is to look at the bit of the law that named the new country, which was Article 1/Section 1 of the 1706/1707 Acts (and Article 1 of the Treaty), and Article First(s) of the 1800 Act(s). Comparative statutory interpretation says that the name of the kingdom before 1801 was Great Britain, and from 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, for the historical purposes of distinguishing the island from the state, the adoption of 'Kingdom of' seems sensible, though not legally accurate. Cripipper ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC);
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)
{{
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)
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)
To Moonraker you wrote the following,
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)
FWIW, I still support a move to Great Britain (kingdom), as above. The intro would read: "Great Britain, also described as the Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a kingdom..." — JonC ॐ 16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is wrong. The name of the state created in 1707 was 'Great Britain'. It says so clearly in the Treaty of Union and the SActs of Union that ratified the treaty. The name 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is not correct - indeed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain is equally valid, since both 'kingdom' and 'united kingdom' are descriptions of the state. I propose that the name of this article be changed to 'Great Britain (historical state)' as suggested above. Wogsalg88 ( talk) 08:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The common name of the state created in 1707 is 'Great Britain' - not 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. Spiritofstgeorge ( talk) 12:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Robynthehode. Currently, I believe it is debated as to whether the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain or whether it is a successor state and that articles regarding this should allow the reader to make that decision. Including the succession of Southern Ireland suggests that the United Kingdom is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. As this isn't very relevant, to avoid confrontation I do not think it should be included. Regards, Rob ( talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm proposing merging Great Britain (disambiguation) to Britain. See Talk:Britain#Merger proposal. Regards, Rob ( talk) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted this change to the opening sentence. The wording "...in north-west Europe" has been unchallenged since this edit in 2008, before which it was "...in western Europe". The change to "...off the coast of continental Europe" is identical to changes that User:WheelerRob has been seeking to make across a swathe of articles in recent days, and stems from the wording at United Kingdom. There has been discussion at that article's talk page, without agreement, but there may need to be further discussion here as well. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
1:2
3:5
Which Flag should be displayed? I believe the first is commonly used today however I'm not sure if it was used pre-1801 and I can find a source. Regards, Rob ( talk) 15:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Although I am aware that this has been discussed many times, I'm not sure anyone has analysed the actually Articles of Union with Scotland, 1707. This shows the term 'Great Britain' in bold, whereas the term 'kingdom' and 'United kingdom' in standard text. Although I understand that the common name for the state, today at-least is the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', the transcript clearly shows that 'Great Britain' is the official name. As with most articles, the title is the common name, with the official name starting the opening sentence, and mentioning that the state is commonly known as the common name. Thus, shouldn't the opening sentence be; 'Great Britain, commonly known as the Kingdom of Great Britain and also referred to as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, [1] [2] [3] [4] was a sovereign state in northwest Europe that existed from 1707 to 1801.' Also the info-box would be changed to the official name as with other articles. Regards, Rob ( talk) 14:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
In the Great Britain Infobox's next state field, should not link to the article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and not directly to United Kingdom) ? The normal order should be: Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800) -> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922) -> United Kingdom I changed it, but my changes were reverted. -- Living001 ( talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Dimadick. Since you are restoring the status quo, I can't revert your edit again. In your statement, 'I disagree with you,
Tóraí,
DeCausa, and .
Scolaire disagree with you' you claim many other editors agree with you also. To be clear I edited the introduction in order to clarify the political status of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, that it was the name for the
United Kingdom before 1927.
The status quo:
My edit:
The status quo currently suggests that the United Kingdom article covers a state that existed since 1927, which is incorrect. The United Kingdom has existed since 1801, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927. To pipe 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' for United Kingdom in contrast to ' United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' is wrong, as the United Kingdom article covers the state with both names. Rob ( talk) 13:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Why? Utterly trivial, but it just looks messy and scrappy, and was a recent change. Nor do I see how WP:WORDSASWORDS applies, unless it applies every time we say something is known by Term X. N-HH talk/ edits 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The states official name was "Great Britain":
"Kingdom of" is used for disambiguation purposes. It's not necessary in the lead.
Rob984 (
talk)
13:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kingdom of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 46.99.142.35 ( talk) 19:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
template above.
Deor (
talk)
21:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kingdom of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Great Britain. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Current article has British POV. For example, the article mentions this as the largest empire (an attempt to glorify the positive aspect, which is true, but only the "half facts"), while conveniently omitting more important aspect of being the "largest exploitative and oppressive empire". Article should be made comprehesive to cover all the "major aspects" with all sides of the facts, not just positive or neutral facts. In an encyclopedia article, this should be captured upfront and the rest of the article should capture "full facts" in a condesensed unbiased manner without the concealment or omission. I only edited one sentence in the beginning. For which, I have provided numerous references within the edit. Rest of the article needs to be cleaned up as well. Let us continue to watch this article, including edits and the "reverts" of legit unpleasant references-backed facts representing full facts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E61E:452:89E8:E49D:FE8B:6391 ( talk) 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In this edit Rob984 reverted multiple edits my multiple editors with the edit summary Not a single contructive edit. This summary seems arrogant and dismissive of the honest contributions of other editors. The following edits appear to me to be constructive.
The mass reversion has undone various other changes which may or may not be desirable. Verbcatcher ( talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
region
from "British Isles" to "The British Isles" would simply break catagorisation. Think that covers everything.
Rob984 (
talk)
01:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Great Britain. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence "King George I was primarily interested in ruling his native Hanover, where he spent most of his time" as it appears to be complete guff. As the ODNB has it "In total George I spent about two and three-quarter years of his thirteen-year reign in Hanover, or at any rate out of Britain." We all need to be on the look out for such falsifications. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
To what does this sentence refer? I am assuming that it means, historians refer to Kingdom of Great Britain (the subject of the article) as Great Britain but its position in the lead, immediately following, "In 1922, five-sixths of Ireland seceded and the state was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – a title it has retained to date", also implies that historians refer to the UK as Great Britain. If it means the former, and given what is later said in the etymology section, I think it probably does, surely it is redundant as the first sentence reads, "The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially Great Britain". If it means the latter, this ought to be discussed and referenced in the main body. I propose removing the statement from the lead because it is ambiguous, possibly redundant and that sort of minutiae doesn't belong there. Thoughts?-- Ykraps ( talk) 11:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the Kingdom of Great Britain the same country as the modern-day United Kingdom? For the longest time, Wikipedia gave the misleading impression that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UKGBI) was a former country. I just want to make sure the same thing is not happening here. The secession of part of a country does not automatically mean the country ceases to exist. For example, the Irish Free State separated from the UKGBI in 1922, but that did not cause the UK to stop existing. Sure, it changed its name to reflect the loss of territory (to the current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). But it's not a new country (i.e. an entirely new successor state) - it's the same country, just with less territory. A country changing its name or borders does not necessarily make it a new country (and that's where a lot of confusion comes from).
Since the U.S. was founded in 1776, there have been 50 states added to it. But of course, we don't say there's been 50 different countries across its history; it's the same country just with more territory, and with the federal government based in Washington DC the entire time. Is it the same situation here (with Great Britain and its Westminster-based government expanding its territory)? In other words: Is the UKGBI an entirely new successor state to the Kingdom of Great Britain? Or is the UKGBI the same country as the Kingdom of Great Britain but with more territory and a new name to reflect that? If the latter is true, the article should not begin with "...Great Britain was a sovereign state" but with "Great Britain was established on 1 May 1707".
I may be wrong (and correct me if I am), but the impression I get is that the Acts of Union 1800 did not cause the Kingdom of Great Britain to cease existing (i.e. become abolished or dissolved) but rather absorbed (i.e. continue as the same country) into a new union. Spellcast ( talk) 00:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, after researching this a bit, perhaps Great Britain did indeed cease to exist in 1801. From this source (which seems to be a quote by judge Edward Pennefather in a court case):
By that article [Article I of the Acts of Union 1800], from the passing of the act of union, the kingdom of Great Britain ceased to exist, the kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist, and instead of those two, there was formed one united kingdom under the style and title of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.' Not one king thenceforth having two kingdoms under his dominion, but from thenceforth one king having one kingdom designated as in that article; and the idea of saying that the Queen of Ireland may be treated or dealt with as the Queen of a separate kingdom is absurd, is seditious.
Bloody hell, it's so easy to get caught up in semantics. So it seems to me that what happened in 1801 was the incorporation of Great Britain and Ireland into a single entity (the United Kingdom), not the joining of Ireland onto the pre-exisiting Great Britain - a nuanced difference which one can easily get confused by. So unlike the UKGBI, the Kingdom of Great Britain is not the same country as the modern-day UK. Spellcast ( talk) 03:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I am going to change the name of the article from the Kingdom of Great Britain to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in seven days. Adam Smith and William Blackstone referred to it as the United Kingdom in the 1700s and constitutionalist A.V. Dicey referred to it as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It was never referred to as the kingdom of Great Britain from my research. Where is the evidence? The Treaty of Union and the Scottish and English legislation states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by the Parliament of Great Britain and even the name of the great seal was referred to as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, not Great Britain or Kingdom of Great Britain. Please state any objections to my proposed alteration below AlbionChief ( talk) 21:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed "Cornish Language" from the list of common languages in this article (a recent insertion) and Snowded ( talk · contribs) has reverted this with the edit summary that Cornish is now recognised and promoted. This is true, and an article about The United Kingdom should mention this, but this article is about the Kingdom of Great Britain. During the period of this article the Cornish language went from a handful of native speakers to (probably) 0. See also our current discussion at Cornish Language (talk section: "Lead contradicts article"). I don't think this article is the place to mention that the language is now recognised and promoted. During the Kingdom of Great Britain as a historical period, it was neither.
The question is whether it deserves a mention at all. Perhaps so. But I don't think the place for a mention is in the infobox "common languages". Before removing the entry, I did look up the infobox template for a description of "common languages" but unfortunately there was none. Yet I don't think we can say that Cornish was a common language at this time by any obvious understanding of the term "common". It was a native language on the verge of extinction, but it was not spoken commonly. More people would have spoken Dutch or especially French [a] as the language of the hearth (despite there being much lower immigration at the time) than spoke Cornish. So I don't think it should be there.
Thoughts? -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 14:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
ETA: Just to add, my edit was a revert of recently added information. WP:BRD would suggest that this should have been discussed in talk before re-introducing the challenged material. Never mind though. Cheers. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 16:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Notes
Hi all
There is a rather fierce discussion going on at the German language Wikipedia ( de:Diskussion:Königreich Großbritannien). A user is rock solidly convinced that the name "Kingdom of Great Britain" is wrong. He thinks that "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is correct and cites various books and websites. He also cites various Acts of Parliament he found an legislation.gov.uk. What is the consensus here? -- Voyager ( talk) 14:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The title says "God save the King" but the hyperlink goes to "God save the Queen". The Audio file also plays "God Save The Queen" so it needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazKader ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
State of Great Britain and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#State of Great Britain until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Balkovec (
talk)
15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Great Britain (kingdom) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Great Britain (kingdom) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Balkovec (
talk)
15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Great Britain (Kingdom) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Great Britain (Kingdom) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Balkovec (
talk)
15:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
So when did the Kingdom of Great Britain officially cease to be, as what time and on what date> Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
"Union with Scotland Act 1706". Retrieved 18 July 2011.:![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
If I may tentatively enter this historical debate, as someone who is now a lawyer, but formerly a professional historian. As noted, part of the problem is the tendency to capitalize Certain Important Nouns, more pronounced by 1706 in Scotland than England, but that may be set aside and instead by looking, as a lawyer, for the answer in what the 1706 Treaty and 1706/1707 Acts of Union say, when compared with the 1800 Acts of Union. The former (in that order, original emphasis) say "forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN " / "forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain " / "for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain " whereas the latter say (British version first, Irish second) "for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " / "for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,” ". So, the legal answer is to look at the bit of the law that named the new country, which was Article 1/Section 1 of the 1706/1707 Acts (and Article 1 of the Treaty), and Article First(s) of the 1800 Act(s). Comparative statutory interpretation says that the name of the kingdom before 1801 was Great Britain, and from 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, for the historical purposes of distinguishing the island from the state, the adoption of 'Kingdom of' seems sensible, though not legally accurate. Cripipper ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC);
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)
{{
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)
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)
To Moonraker you wrote the following,
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)
FWIW, I still support a move to Great Britain (kingdom), as above. The intro would read: "Great Britain, also described as the Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a kingdom..." — JonC ॐ 16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is wrong. The name of the state created in 1707 was 'Great Britain'. It says so clearly in the Treaty of Union and the SActs of Union that ratified the treaty. The name 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is not correct - indeed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain is equally valid, since both 'kingdom' and 'united kingdom' are descriptions of the state. I propose that the name of this article be changed to 'Great Britain (historical state)' as suggested above. Wogsalg88 ( talk) 08:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The common name of the state created in 1707 is 'Great Britain' - not 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. Spiritofstgeorge ( talk) 12:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Robynthehode. Currently, I believe it is debated as to whether the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain or whether it is a successor state and that articles regarding this should allow the reader to make that decision. Including the succession of Southern Ireland suggests that the United Kingdom is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. As this isn't very relevant, to avoid confrontation I do not think it should be included. Regards, Rob ( talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm proposing merging Great Britain (disambiguation) to Britain. See Talk:Britain#Merger proposal. Regards, Rob ( talk) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted this change to the opening sentence. The wording "...in north-west Europe" has been unchallenged since this edit in 2008, before which it was "...in western Europe". The change to "...off the coast of continental Europe" is identical to changes that User:WheelerRob has been seeking to make across a swathe of articles in recent days, and stems from the wording at United Kingdom. There has been discussion at that article's talk page, without agreement, but there may need to be further discussion here as well. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
1:2
3:5
Which Flag should be displayed? I believe the first is commonly used today however I'm not sure if it was used pre-1801 and I can find a source. Regards, Rob ( talk) 15:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Although I am aware that this has been discussed many times, I'm not sure anyone has analysed the actually Articles of Union with Scotland, 1707. This shows the term 'Great Britain' in bold, whereas the term 'kingdom' and 'United kingdom' in standard text. Although I understand that the common name for the state, today at-least is the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', the transcript clearly shows that 'Great Britain' is the official name. As with most articles, the title is the common name, with the official name starting the opening sentence, and mentioning that the state is commonly known as the common name. Thus, shouldn't the opening sentence be; 'Great Britain, commonly known as the Kingdom of Great Britain and also referred to as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, [1] [2] [3] [4] was a sovereign state in northwest Europe that existed from 1707 to 1801.' Also the info-box would be changed to the official name as with other articles. Regards, Rob ( talk) 14:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
In the Great Britain Infobox's next state field, should not link to the article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and not directly to United Kingdom) ? The normal order should be: Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800) -> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922) -> United Kingdom I changed it, but my changes were reverted. -- Living001 ( talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Dimadick. Since you are restoring the status quo, I can't revert your edit again. In your statement, 'I disagree with you,
Tóraí,
DeCausa, and .
Scolaire disagree with you' you claim many other editors agree with you also. To be clear I edited the introduction in order to clarify the political status of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, that it was the name for the
United Kingdom before 1927.
The status quo:
My edit:
The status quo currently suggests that the United Kingdom article covers a state that existed since 1927, which is incorrect. The United Kingdom has existed since 1801, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927. To pipe 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' for United Kingdom in contrast to ' United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' is wrong, as the United Kingdom article covers the state with both names. Rob ( talk) 13:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Why? Utterly trivial, but it just looks messy and scrappy, and was a recent change. Nor do I see how WP:WORDSASWORDS applies, unless it applies every time we say something is known by Term X. N-HH talk/ edits 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The states official name was "Great Britain":
"Kingdom of" is used for disambiguation purposes. It's not necessary in the lead.
Rob984 (
talk)
13:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kingdom of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 46.99.142.35 ( talk) 19:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
template above.
Deor (
talk)
21:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Kingdom of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Great Britain. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Current article has British POV. For example, the article mentions this as the largest empire (an attempt to glorify the positive aspect, which is true, but only the "half facts"), while conveniently omitting more important aspect of being the "largest exploitative and oppressive empire". Article should be made comprehesive to cover all the "major aspects" with all sides of the facts, not just positive or neutral facts. In an encyclopedia article, this should be captured upfront and the rest of the article should capture "full facts" in a condesensed unbiased manner without the concealment or omission. I only edited one sentence in the beginning. For which, I have provided numerous references within the edit. Rest of the article needs to be cleaned up as well. Let us continue to watch this article, including edits and the "reverts" of legit unpleasant references-backed facts representing full facts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E61E:452:89E8:E49D:FE8B:6391 ( talk) 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In this edit Rob984 reverted multiple edits my multiple editors with the edit summary Not a single contructive edit. This summary seems arrogant and dismissive of the honest contributions of other editors. The following edits appear to me to be constructive.
The mass reversion has undone various other changes which may or may not be desirable. Verbcatcher ( talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
region
from "British Isles" to "The British Isles" would simply break catagorisation. Think that covers everything.
Rob984 (
talk)
01:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Great Britain. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence "King George I was primarily interested in ruling his native Hanover, where he spent most of his time" as it appears to be complete guff. As the ODNB has it "In total George I spent about two and three-quarter years of his thirteen-year reign in Hanover, or at any rate out of Britain." We all need to be on the look out for such falsifications. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
To what does this sentence refer? I am assuming that it means, historians refer to Kingdom of Great Britain (the subject of the article) as Great Britain but its position in the lead, immediately following, "In 1922, five-sixths of Ireland seceded and the state was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – a title it has retained to date", also implies that historians refer to the UK as Great Britain. If it means the former, and given what is later said in the etymology section, I think it probably does, surely it is redundant as the first sentence reads, "The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially Great Britain". If it means the latter, this ought to be discussed and referenced in the main body. I propose removing the statement from the lead because it is ambiguous, possibly redundant and that sort of minutiae doesn't belong there. Thoughts?-- Ykraps ( talk) 11:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the Kingdom of Great Britain the same country as the modern-day United Kingdom? For the longest time, Wikipedia gave the misleading impression that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UKGBI) was a former country. I just want to make sure the same thing is not happening here. The secession of part of a country does not automatically mean the country ceases to exist. For example, the Irish Free State separated from the UKGBI in 1922, but that did not cause the UK to stop existing. Sure, it changed its name to reflect the loss of territory (to the current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). But it's not a new country (i.e. an entirely new successor state) - it's the same country, just with less territory. A country changing its name or borders does not necessarily make it a new country (and that's where a lot of confusion comes from).
Since the U.S. was founded in 1776, there have been 50 states added to it. But of course, we don't say there's been 50 different countries across its history; it's the same country just with more territory, and with the federal government based in Washington DC the entire time. Is it the same situation here (with Great Britain and its Westminster-based government expanding its territory)? In other words: Is the UKGBI an entirely new successor state to the Kingdom of Great Britain? Or is the UKGBI the same country as the Kingdom of Great Britain but with more territory and a new name to reflect that? If the latter is true, the article should not begin with "...Great Britain was a sovereign state" but with "Great Britain was established on 1 May 1707".
I may be wrong (and correct me if I am), but the impression I get is that the Acts of Union 1800 did not cause the Kingdom of Great Britain to cease existing (i.e. become abolished or dissolved) but rather absorbed (i.e. continue as the same country) into a new union. Spellcast ( talk) 00:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, after researching this a bit, perhaps Great Britain did indeed cease to exist in 1801. From this source (which seems to be a quote by judge Edward Pennefather in a court case):
By that article [Article I of the Acts of Union 1800], from the passing of the act of union, the kingdom of Great Britain ceased to exist, the kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist, and instead of those two, there was formed one united kingdom under the style and title of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.' Not one king thenceforth having two kingdoms under his dominion, but from thenceforth one king having one kingdom designated as in that article; and the idea of saying that the Queen of Ireland may be treated or dealt with as the Queen of a separate kingdom is absurd, is seditious.
Bloody hell, it's so easy to get caught up in semantics. So it seems to me that what happened in 1801 was the incorporation of Great Britain and Ireland into a single entity (the United Kingdom), not the joining of Ireland onto the pre-exisiting Great Britain - a nuanced difference which one can easily get confused by. So unlike the UKGBI, the Kingdom of Great Britain is not the same country as the modern-day UK. Spellcast ( talk) 03:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I am going to change the name of the article from the Kingdom of Great Britain to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in seven days. Adam Smith and William Blackstone referred to it as the United Kingdom in the 1700s and constitutionalist A.V. Dicey referred to it as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It was never referred to as the kingdom of Great Britain from my research. Where is the evidence? The Treaty of Union and the Scottish and English legislation states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by the Parliament of Great Britain and even the name of the great seal was referred to as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, not Great Britain or Kingdom of Great Britain. Please state any objections to my proposed alteration below AlbionChief ( talk) 21:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed "Cornish Language" from the list of common languages in this article (a recent insertion) and Snowded ( talk · contribs) has reverted this with the edit summary that Cornish is now recognised and promoted. This is true, and an article about The United Kingdom should mention this, but this article is about the Kingdom of Great Britain. During the period of this article the Cornish language went from a handful of native speakers to (probably) 0. See also our current discussion at Cornish Language (talk section: "Lead contradicts article"). I don't think this article is the place to mention that the language is now recognised and promoted. During the Kingdom of Great Britain as a historical period, it was neither.
The question is whether it deserves a mention at all. Perhaps so. But I don't think the place for a mention is in the infobox "common languages". Before removing the entry, I did look up the infobox template for a description of "common languages" but unfortunately there was none. Yet I don't think we can say that Cornish was a common language at this time by any obvious understanding of the term "common". It was a native language on the verge of extinction, but it was not spoken commonly. More people would have spoken Dutch or especially French [a] as the language of the hearth (despite there being much lower immigration at the time) than spoke Cornish. So I don't think it should be there.
Thoughts? -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 14:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
ETA: Just to add, my edit was a revert of recently added information. WP:BRD would suggest that this should have been discussed in talk before re-introducing the challenged material. Never mind though. Cheers. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 16:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Notes
Hi all
There is a rather fierce discussion going on at the German language Wikipedia ( de:Diskussion:Königreich Großbritannien). A user is rock solidly convinced that the name "Kingdom of Great Britain" is wrong. He thinks that "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is correct and cites various books and websites. He also cites various Acts of Parliament he found an legislation.gov.uk. What is the consensus here? -- Voyager ( talk) 14:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The title says "God save the King" but the hyperlink goes to "God save the Queen". The Audio file also plays "God Save The Queen" so it needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazKader ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
State of Great Britain and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#State of Great Britain until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Balkovec (
talk)
15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Great Britain (kingdom) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Great Britain (kingdom) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Balkovec (
talk)
15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Great Britain (Kingdom) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Great Britain (Kingdom) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Balkovec (
talk)
15:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
So when did the Kingdom of Great Britain officially cease to be, as what time and on what date> Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
"Union with Scotland Act 1706". Retrieved 18 July 2011.: