British? Isles

Factual Questions
21

Well, almost. The clue is (Norman) French, whence we get a suprising lot of our vocabulary, including, ironically, ‘Britain’. In French, the island you’re talking about is ‘Grande Bretagne’, and the nearby peninsula is ‘Bretagne’. There never was a ‘Lesser Britain’; for that matter, there has never been a ‘Greater Britain’ either. Just Brita[ i ]n[ny] and Great Britain.
[/nitpick]

**Uh . . . uh . . . sort of. The first British colony outside the British Isles was Jamestown, Virginia, 1607. That’s ‘James’ as in ‘James I King of England and James VI King of Scotland’, and 1607 is four years after England and Scotland were united. So in that context, the Empire has been British from the start. On the other hand, depending on whom you talk to, Ireland was ‘colonised’ by Henry II in 1171. On the other other hand, at that time, Henry’s demesnes also included a pretty fair chunk of France, and it should more properly be called the ‘Norman Empire’.

Ireland was really a colony of England, and never really had its own ‘ruler’ from 1171 on. Wales was annexed in 1284, but maintained its identity. Scotland, on the other hand, was fiercely independent clear up to 1603. From 1603 to 1801, the kingdom was usually called ‘Great Britain’, which was pretty accurate. Only at this late date was Ireland really a partner in the newly-christened ‘United Kingdom’, and even then it was very definitely a junior partner, but the kingdom was no longer called ‘Great Britain’.

Notoriously not, as the famous Times headline from many years ago illustrates so Britishly.

FOG ENGULFS CHANNEL; CONTINENT ISOLATED

And be careful with the ‘English/British’ distinction; most Scots, Welsh and Manx would not consider themselves any more European than your typical Englishperson. The rule of thumb, as laid down by Flanders and Swann, is:
‘If they’ve done something good, it’s “Another Triumph For Great Britain”; but if something goes wrong, it’s “England Loses Again”.’

Iceland sits astraddle the American and European tectonic plates; and although the majority of the population lives on the western part of the island, and on the American plate, Iceland is traditionally considered ‘European’ (some even call it ‘Scandinavian’). Greenland is the world’s largest island in the world’s largest archipelago (the Arctic Archipelago, the rest of which lies in Canada), and although it is (a self-governing) part of Denmark, it is squarely in North America (as is Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, even though it is a part of France).

Here’s the problem. Before the Germanic and Italic tribes pushed their way in, most of Europe was Celtic, and even past Europe into Turkey. ‘Galat-’, as in Galatians, the people in eastern Turkey that Paul wrote to, comes from the same root as ‘Celt’. So ‘Celtic Isles’ could just as easily apply to Cyprus and Corsica as to the ‘Irish Archipelago’. ‘Gaelic Isles’ is somewhat less accurate than calling them the ‘English Isles’. Of the five Celtic languages spoken recently in the archipelago, three (Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Manx) are Goidelic (a subfamily of your Celtic language tree), and two (Welsh and Cornish) are Brythonic (a different subfamily of Celtic). The Welsh would have a big problem living in the Gaelic Isles. Welsh is about as closely related to Scots Gaelic as French is to German. And there are more Welsh speakers than the other four combined.

But you want to know what the #1 Celtic language is in the world today? It’s called ‘Breton’, and it’s spoken by over a million people in northern France. So what’s wrong with ‘British Isles’? The word ‘British’ is a proud Celtic word that succinctly describes the geography of the area.

22

I would disagree with this statement. When James VI of Scotland became King of England, there was no corresponding political union. Scotland and England continued to be separate realms, sharing a common ruler. For example, the Scots Parliament continued to sit throughout the 17th century. It wasn’t until the Act of Union of 1707 that the two countries were united under a single Parliament and political structure.

23

A good example of the separation of political power between Scotland and England in the seventeenth century is the Darien project:

http://www.scotlandspast.com/darien.htm
http://website.lineone.net/~mmccourt/page4.html

In 1695 Scotland tried to set up a trading colony on the Panama Isthmus to counter England’s growing mastery of American trade routes. The English parliament countered this in open and covert ways and effectively bankrupted the Scotish polity, leading almost directly to the union of the two parliaments. Thus even as late as 1695-1700 there was overt and aggresive competition between the two political entities, Scotland and England.

24

I’ve heard the term “Anglo-Celtic Isles”, but I agree it isn’t likely to catch on.

Personally, I just use “Britain and Ireland”. While it’s true this leaves out the small surrounding islands, it’s quite rare that I need a term as inclusive as that.

MrDeath:

This is simply not true. It may be true that Welsh is as incomprehensible to a Gaelic speaker as French is to a German speaker, but that’s a result simply of the lexical differences. In most other respects Welsh is clearly far closer to the Gaelics than French is to German.

sigh You just don’t get it.

25

Glass Onion:

Oops, I forgot about the BBC. they do tend to us that, specifically when they are referring to Irish people who have done well over in Britian. (e.g. Roy Keane) or when Ireland Qualified for USA '94 (“and representing the British Isles in this tournament, Ireland” ) so, you’re right. It is a little more common than I remember :wink:

Have you noticed that ITV don’t use it alot?

As for the name changes, well, are you sitting comfortably? Yes? then lets begin.

Pre 1921, Ireland was as a whole controlled by Britian. The “British Isles” (;)) was called The United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland. After the War of Independence, and the Sunningdale agreement, the 6 counties became “Northern Ireland” and the other 26 became "the Irish Free State. In 1927, The 26 counties were called Eire, and Easter Monday, 1949, we became the Republic of Ireland.
Many Irish do feel an association with Europe. Dublin is very much a European Capital City, like Rome or Amsterdam. We do want to keep our identity separately recognised, but the support we have recieved from Europe has really brought us into the fold.

26

You’re right; I retract my statement. Welsh is about as closely related to Scots Gaelic as French is to Romanian. Germanic and Italic, to which German and French belong, are farther apart than Brythonic and Goidelic (or ‘p-Celtic’ and ‘q-Celtic’). A better approximation is Eastern Romance and Gallo-Romance.

Probably not. I’m not pretending to be Celtic. I know ‘British’ has bad connotations. I just think it might be time to reclaim the word is all. A misnomer like ‘Celtic Isles’ rings worse in my ear than the status quo.

27

What I meant was, ‘. . . four years after the English and Scottish crowns were united.’ And by ‘united’ I don’t mean they became a single institution, just that they were held by the same person. If you had quoted the sentence that followed that one—

Which is true; the empire wasn’t England’s, or Scotland’s, it was King James’ (or King Charles’, or uh, well use your imagination for Cromwell). And by being King of England (and Wales), and King of Scotland, he was ipsos factos King of Great Britain. I was trying to give context to my contention, that ‘English Empire’ is not a more accurate phrase than ‘British Empire’ (or ‘Norman Empire’). Maybe ‘Stuart-Hanover Empire’?

28

Technically speaking, didn’t the “British Empire” only exist between 1877 (when Queen Victoria became Empress of India) and 1947 (when India achieved independence)? When, officially, is something an “empire”? I’ve seen references to the “Angevin Empire” in the 12th/13th centuries, but I’m not sure how official an entity that was… and I’ve never heard of Stuart-era England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales being officially an “empire”. What do they call these things?

29

Why not just refer to the island group as “The UK and Ireland” or, if you prefer, “Ireland and the UK”? It’s only slightly longer than “the British Isles”, but covers the same geographical area.

Personally, I think of “the British Isles” as being a bit like “the Iberian Peninsula”; a geographical term which carries no political or other implication. As others have pointed out, it pre-dates the existence of Great Britain as a country by many hundreds of years.

30

Variations on all these questions come round on the SDMB with boring regularity.

Cecil himself has dealt with the Britain/Great Britain/Brittany issue.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_153.html

I can comment on a number of the other points.

The colonial possessions of the King of England, Scotland and Ireland were already being referred to by some writers as ‘the British Empire’ as early as the reign of James VI and I. (Shorter OED) Contemporaries did however distinguish between the English colonies (most of them) and the Scottish ones (Darien) until 1707.

The Union of 1603 was only a personal union in the person of James VI and I. James nevertheless remained the de facto ruler of all three of his kingdoms, even if, for certain purposes, he required the cooperation of his Parliaments in London, Edinburgh and Dublin. Except during periods of crisis (most notably between 1637 and 1652), policy for each was determined and coordinated from London.

Any solution based on a supposed common Celtic identity will be just as problematic as any other. Some archaeologists and historians now question the idea that the ‘Celts’ ever existed as a single group deserving such an overarching description. The hardline view is that the idea that there had been such a people was simply invented in the early eighteenth century. This is not to deny that there was/is some cultural or linguistic links between the native populations of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany, but the same is just as true of their links with England.

Same with me, and I suspect this is also true of most inhabitants of all the islands.

31

Twisty, mo chara, you mean the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Sunningdale was in 1973.

32

Some mistake surely- IIRC Sunningdale was a failed attempt in 1973 to create a similar situation that currently exists in the Irish Stalemate known as the Peace Process:

http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/sligo/93/past/history/19721984.html

33

DAMMIT PIPER! Now you’ve gone and ruined the element of surprise.

I guess the First Muskoka Mosquito Sqdn is going to have to move up its carpet-bombing of the Baldwins.

34

I am very aware of this distinction. I was specifically referring to the people of England, not of the UK. I suspect that the Scots, Welsh, and Manx feel more friendly towards “being European” than the English. At least I understand so from the reports of the last UK election and the SNP.

35

While the SNP and Plaid Cymru are essentially pro-European, so are Labour and the Lib Dems. Bear in mind that Plaid held only four of the 40 Welsh seats at the last election and the SNP held a similar proportion (I can’t recall the exact number) of Scottish seats. Most English voters voted for a pro-European manifesto in 1997 and I suspect they will do the same next month.

36

Ah yes, Sunningdale was in 1973. Mea Cupla. I’m an idiot.

37

Well you may have had something there. In my many readings they called themselves, or rather the Romans called them Britons. British is probably a much newer term. I think the term British came about as a way to describe the resulting Briton-Angle-Saxon-Norman-etc. mixture. According to Ptolemy Great Britain was called Britanica not Britania. All this the Romans traced back to some cockamamie story about a Trojan named Brion who made it all the way there and gave it his name.

And just to show off, what we today call Britany was then called Armorica. I’m not sure when it took on it’s new name, probably around when the Franks crossed the Rhine and was a term that they used to describe this odd unconquered bit in the corner. Back them Ireland was also called (at least in someplaces) Scotland because that where the Scots lived. Not yet moving to their now famous homeland.

As for a nice neutral name for the Islands … That’s really hard since they’ve never been really together in an even since in the last, oh, let’s say 2000 years. So I nominate The not the rest of the world islands

38

Don’t think so… “British” is just an adjective describing things that come from Britain (as in “British justice”, “British fair play”, “British common sense”, “British appreciation of the virtues of other nations”), which can, of course, include people. “Briton”, on the other hand, is a noun meaning “a native/inhabitant of Britain”. Neither word actually used by the Romans, of course, since they were unreliable foreign types who didn’t speak English. (No, the minor detail that the English language, as such, didn’t exist at that time does not excuse them.)

Found a possibly helpful etymological reference at this site from which I quote:-

The Trojan settlement of Britain (under Brutus, the great-great-grandson of Aeneas) seems to be a mediaeval myth. The earliest reference to it that I’m aware of comes in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s oh-so-very-accurate [sub]sarcasm[/sub] History of the Kings of Britain. There’s some textual evidence that suggests that Geoffrey was drawing on earlier sources… but, then, there’s some textual evidence that Geoffrey was smoking crack.

39

Some time after the Bretons arrived. The Bretons came from the British Isles, say a few centuries after the Romans left. Breton is an ‘Insular Celtic’ language, despite its speaking base being on the continent.

Perfect! It’s so very British. :wink: