# Great Britian vs. United Kingdoms vs. The British Empire **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 10, 2009, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930 "2009-03-10T07:13:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/41 "2009-03-10T16:10:32Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But is the concept of four countries making up a larger country any more difficult to follow than the idea of fifty states making up a larger state? Except that the UK isn’t a true federal state, either. If it was, there would be an Assembly or Parliament for England as well as for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The UK Parliament would handle national affairs. There would have to be some kind of agreement setting out which powers went to which level of government, though–and then the system would look a lot like Canada or Australia. As it is, things are fuzzy, ill-defined, and asymmetrical. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/42 "2009-03-10T16:13:59Z")
> [@Celyn](#): > > However, you’ll still find B.B.C. articles or newspaper articles saying something-or-other about new measures in education or health or whatever, without making it clear exactly which bits of the U.K. they mean - usually it turns out to be a measure that relates to England or England and Wales, but it makes things tricky to read to get what the facts are. This is quite amusing: I took a look at Google News’ results for today’s headline-grab, about 6-month fast-track teacher training, which only applies to England, with devolved assemblies able to make their own decisions. Not only does [Reuters](http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKTRE5292YC20090310) get it wrong (‘Britain’), but the [Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/10/teacher-training) and [Telegraph](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4964029/Professionals-will-be-able-to-retrain-as-teachers-in-six-months.html) don’t say which it is, and nor does at least one [Welsh paper](http://www.caernarfonherald.co.uk/caernarfon-county-news/uk-world-news/2009/03/10/fast-track-teacher-training-planned-88817-23105088/)! ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/43 "2009-03-10T16:14:01Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > On the naming of the islands, this is useful: [File:British Isles Euler diagram.svg - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Isles_Euler_diagram.svg) The Channel Islands are geographically part of the British Isles? I would have thought that they were geographically part of mainland Europe (even though they are politically British Islands). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/44 "2009-03-10T16:18:44Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > Except that the UK isn’t a true federal state, either. If it was, there would be an Assembly or Parliament for England as well as for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The UK Parliament would handle national affairs. There would have to be some kind of agreement setting out which powers went to which level of government, though–and then the system would look a lot like Canada or Australia. As it is, things are fuzzy, ill-defined, and asymmetrical. It isn’t a federal state at all. It’s a unitary one. One of the necessary characteristics of a federal state is that devolved powers cannot be taken away, which is not the case in the UK. See the US Constitution’s separation of powers schtick. Parliament can dissolve the other assemblies tomorrow, if it likes. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/45 "2009-03-10T16:22:15Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > The Channel Islands are geographically part of the British Isles? I would have thought that they were geographically part of mainland Europe (even though they are politically British Islands). Wikipedia explains it like this: _“The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.”_ I suppose one extra problem is that if you insist on a purely geographical designation, then the Faroe Islands have as much right to be included as Shetland does… ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/46 "2009-03-10T16:28:11Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > This is not only all terribly wrong but very strange as well. No one here ever uses British to mean ‘English to the exclusion of the Welsh’, I don’t know where you’ve got that from. And I’m not sure whether it’s true that ‘British’ used to mean solely the Welsh and the Cornish, but even if it did, you’ve just said that’s not the case any more so the idea that ‘technically, the English aren’t British either’ is completely false. I should have clearer: you hear this in occasionally usage, but not in formal contexts. I heard it once on BBC radio one, from newsreader who ought to have known better, and I’ve heard it from English people living in Wales. But no, it’s by no means common or accepted. As for the historical usage, check your OED. And yes, I know that hasn’t been the case for hundreds of years, but it was used as such up until Tudor times, so it’s not exactly a leftover pedantry from people who read too much Caesar. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/47 "2009-03-10T16:48:02Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > I should have clearer: you hear this in occasionally usage, but not in formal contexts. I heard it once on BBC radio one, from newsreader who ought to have known better, and I’ve heard it from English people living in Wales. But no, it’s by no means common or accepted. There’s also the case of ‘Brits’ being used disparagingly by Irish people (particularly as in ‘Brits out’), when really it’s animosity directed more towards the English than what are perceived to be ‘fellow Celts’. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/48 "2009-03-10T16:53:30Z")
> [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](#): > > The United Kingdom of Great Britain did not include Northern Ireland exclusively until 1921. That’s a long time after America gained independence for example, so it would be incorrect to say. ‘America gained independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.’ Pedantic I know, but hey. > > In the last sentence I wrote, I meant Ireland gained independence from the UK of Great Britain, apologies. Except at the time Ireland obtained its independence, the formal title of the UK was the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.” The UK has had three different names: [ul] [li]from 1707 until 1800, it was simply Great Britain, composed of the union of Egland and Wales with Scotland, by the [Acts of Union](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707), although the term “United Kingdom of Great Britain” was also used;[/li] [li]from 1801 to 1927, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, based on the [Acts of Union 1800](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1800); [/li] [li] from 1927 onwards, it’s been the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, based on the [Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_Parliamentary_Titles_Act_1927) (although as the wiki page indiicates, there is some uncertainty about exactly when the change occurred). [/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/49 "2009-03-10T16:55:23Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > Except that the UK isn’t a true federal state, either. If it was, there would be an Assembly or Parliament for England as well as for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The UK Parliament would handle national affairs. There would have to be some kind of agreement setting out which powers went to which level of government, though–and then the system would look a lot like Canada or Australia. As it is, things are fuzzy, ill-defined, and asymmetrical. I never said it was a federal state; I was just commenting that the idea of smaller political units forming a larger sovereign state is actually fairly common. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/50 "2009-03-10T16:57:57Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Some Commonwealth countries had become independent earlier, starting with Canada in 1867, but they were regarded as part of the British Empire until that became the Commonwealth. Canada was still a subordinate Dominion subject to British control upon its formation in 1867. It gained its independence sometime between 1867 and 1926, when the [Balfour Declaration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_1926) recognized the existing autonomy and co-ordinate status of the Dominions with the United Kingdom. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/51 "2009-03-10T17:35:22Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > The English Civil War was before the union with Scotland, but a lot of it took place in Wales. In other words, the England / England-and-Wales / Great Britain / U.K. confusion goes back a long, long, long way. Not that anyone called it ‘the English Civil War’ at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Rayne\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df705f/32.png) [@Rayne\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rayne_Man)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/52 "2009-03-10T17:51:54Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Not that anyone called it ‘the English Civil War’ at the time. And technally there was more than one war. In fact there were three:- 1642–1646, 1648–1649 and 1649–1651. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/53 "2009-03-10T18:48:06Z")
The way I had always heard it explained was that England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are each countries, but not nations. The three countries on the island of Great Britain and a portion of the country of Ireland together form the nation of the United Kingdom, while the rest of the country of Ireland is the nation the Republic of Ireland. ---
**Author:** ![Rayne\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df705f/32.png) [@Rayne\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rayne_Man)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/54 "2009-03-10T19:06:15Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The way I had always heard it explained was that England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are each countries, but not nations. The three countries on the island of Great Britain and a portion of the country of Ireland together form the nation of the United Kingdom, while the rest of the country of Ireland is the nation the Republic of Ireland. Interestingly the BBC has it the other way around, and describes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as “nations” :- [http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/nationsregions.shtml](http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/nationsregions.shtml) [http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/10\_october/18/reform\_nations.shtml](http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/10_october/18/reform_nations.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/55 "2009-03-10T19:38:45Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > I should have clearer: you hear this [people using British to mean English to the exclusion of the Welsh] in occasionally usage, but not in formal contexts. I heard it once on BBC radio one, from newsreader who ought to have known better, and I’ve heard it from English people living in Wales. Maybe you’d hear people using it accidentally (but perhaps arrogantly), like the example someone gave of a news site announcing, ‘Britain introduces new law on teachers’ when in fact it was only England that introduced it. Your second example makes sense purely because of the context: if someone is in a Welsh village, where everyone is Welsh, and says, ‘a bus of British tourists came in earlier’ then they’re obviously using the term British to distinguish themselves from tourists who may be from various parts of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. But I’ve never heard someone use the term British to deliberately exclude the Welsh in an objective context: ‘most of our group is British, but some of us are Welsh too’, that kind of thing. The word simply doesn’t accommodate that implication; it doesn’t make sense. It would be taken as a joke, like saying, ‘most of us are Americans, but this guy here’s from Utah…’ ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/56 "2009-03-10T19:39:40Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Not that anyone called it ‘the English Civil War’ at the time. D’oh! I hadn’t thought of that. They did, however, often use “England” to cover both England and Wales in the sixteenth century after the 1536 Act of Union. Of course, that was not done out of ignorance, and there was no confusion involved. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/57 "2009-03-10T19:48:18Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > Maybe you’d hear people using it accidentally (but perhaps arrogantly), like the example someone gave of a news site announcing, ‘Britain introduces new law on teachers’ when in fact it was only England that introduced it. Your second example makes sense purely because of the context: if someone is in a Welsh village, where everyone is Welsh, and says, ‘a bus of British tourists came in earlier’ then they’re obviously using the term British to distinguish themselves from tourists who may be from various parts of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. > > But I’ve never heard someone use the term British to deliberately exclude the Welsh in an objective context: ‘most of our group is British, but some of us are Welsh too’, that kind of thing. The word simply doesn’t accommodate that implication; it doesn’t make sense. It would be taken as a joke, like saying, ‘most of us are Americans, but this guy here’s from Utah…’ The newsreader example was in 2002 or 2003. He was talking about a ship in the Persian gulf with “Welsh and British” sailors. What else could he have meant? He obviously misspoke, but he did say it. That’s the single example I have. I see in my first post that I said “often,” but I can’t tell you why I wrote that. It was six a.m. in this time zone, pre-caffeine, and a stupid thing to write. I’ve only ever heard that usage once that I can specifically recall. That glib inaccuracy has probably colored my other posts in this thread. I’m sorry. I have heard “England” used in casual speech to mean “England and Wales.” I assume this is what my landlord in Aberystwyth meant when he asked, “How long have you lived in England?” I can’t think of other examples right now, but I have heard England used metonymously for the U.K. by both Welsh and English. I remember because it surprised me: before moving there, I had thought only Americans did that. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/58 "2009-03-10T20:12:33Z")
Just to expand a little on the somewhat confusing overlaps, let me describe myself: **Political** Nationality: British Passport issued by: United Kingdom (shown as part of the European Union) Self-identified as: English Native language: English Ancestry: 75% English, 25% Scottish **Sport** National Soccer team: England (who play Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland) National Rugby team: England (who play Scotland, Wales and Ireland) National Olympic team: Great Britain ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/59 "2009-03-10T20:17:20Z")
Elizabeth II is “Queen of England” only in the sense that she is “Queen of the Australian Capital Territory” or “Queen of Nunavut.” The last person with the _style_ "Queen of England\* died in 1714 – and she hadn’t used it for seven years. Great Britain **is** a physical entity, the large island that contains most of England, Scotland, and Wales (all of which have smaller offshore islands as part of their territory too). But “Great Britain” **was** two things: after 1603, the name adopted by James VI of Scotland when he became James I of England to describe his two realms in a single term, used on an off by the other Stuarts in the century following, then the name adopted by Queen Anne (and later used by the first three Georges) to identify the unified kingdom resulting from the union of Scotland and England. (In both cases, ‘England’ as a political term includes Wales.) When Ireland was united with Great Britain in 1800, almost the present usage (but without “…Northern…”) was adopted, modified in 1922 by inserting the “Northern” before “Ireland.” ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930/60 "2009-03-10T20:20:57Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The way I had always heard it explained was that England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are each countries, but not nations. In the true sense of those terms, they are countries AND nations. Generally speaking, “country” refers (or should refer) a geographically distinct entity, and “nation” refers to a distinct population. That’s not universally used but it’s probably the most advisable use. People in Canada, for instance, often refer to Quebec as a “Nation” - in fact, Quebec calls itself that, and the federal government formally recognizes it as fact. Quebec could also be said to be a country, though I don’t usually hear that usage. Quite similar, Scotland is both a country and a nation. What Scotland and Quebec are not is **states** , e,g, a fully sovereign entity uncontrolled by any foreign state, distinct from other states. Sometimes it’s called a “Nation-state,” especially in North America to distinguish it from the American and Mexican “states” as subordinate entitites in a federal government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-britian-vs-united-kingdoms-vs-the-british-empire/488930.md?page=4)