NationStates Jolt Archive

So which country is older - the United States or the United Kingdom?

Im going with the latter. But the United Kingdom isint just one country.

Hmmmm

The United Kingdom I suppose. They were established in 16 something? US became the US in 1776, or am I wrong?

16--something or the other.. With King James.

Act of Union, 1707.

Though it was when James was of both scotland and england. Must be mistaken.

Hint: so far there have been 0 correct answers.

well...technically...if you consider a country a nation unruled by a monarchy...the U.S.

Well the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dates from after the Easter Rebellion, so it's current form is probably from about 1921. But the amalgamation with Ireland was more of a realignment than a new government so I'll put the date at the official union of Ireland and England in 1801. The US of course dates from the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. So as a nation the US is older.

But there is a difference between a country and a nation. The US is still older as there is no country of the UK, so any existing country is older than the country of the UK. The countries which make up the UK are all older than the US.

Obviously England is far older.

However to the question at hand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain is older then the United States.

The Act of Union in 1707 merged the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. After that there was once parliament and goverment based in Westminster.

Hint: so far there have been 0 correct answers.
Bah, I say.

"Seeing, by the articles of Union, now under the consideration of the Honourable Estates of Parliament, it is agreed that Scotland and England shall be united into one kingdom; and that the united kingdoms be united by one and the same Parliament, by which our monarchy Is suppressed, our parliament extinguished, and in consequence our religion, church government, claim of right, laws, liberties, trade and all that is dear to us, daily in danger of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English In a British Parliament, wherein the mean representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the interest reserved by us, or granted to us by the English."

Unless you count Northern Ireland. But, by that logic you could argue that the US didn't exist 'til whenever Hawaii/Alaska joined.

Well the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dates from after the Easter Rebellion, so it's current form is probably from about 1921. But the amalgamation with Ireland was more of a realignment than a new government so I'll put the date at the official union of Ireland and England in 1801. The US of course dates from the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. So a a nation the US is older.


That is a good enough summary of the whole tangled issue to win the virtual cigar. (1927 not 1921 with regard to the Northern Ireland part, but close enough).

Unless you count Northern Ireland. But, by that logic you could argue that the US didn't exist 'til whenever Hawaii/Alaska joined.

Ah, but you/they don't call yourselves "United States of America (including Alaska & Hawaii)" do they? The name has remained the same since the Declaration of Independence, no?

So which country is older - the United States or the United Kingdom?
the UK.

Obviously England is far older.

However to the question at hand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain is older then the United States.

The Act of Union in 1707 merged the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. After that there was once parliament and goverment based in Westminster.

Yes, but it became the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" after that in 1801, and then the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1927.

Act of Union refers to the "United Kingdom", so I'm gonna go with that. 1707 I say.

the UK.

Not in its current form.

Act of Union refers to the "United Kingdom", so I'm gonna go with that. 1707 I say.

Yes, but that was the "United Kingdom of Great Britain", which is no longer what "UK" stands for.

And with that I will leave this topic to make its own way in the world...

Bah, I say.

Why consider the union with Scottland a new nation (country) but not Ireland? I dislike the 1927 date, but the 1801 Act of Union was effectively identicle to the 1707 act. And if you want the first Act of Union, you should consider the one uniting England and Wales (1536 I think). I would have an easier time accepting that as starting date than the Union with Scotland

Well you could argue that the US has only been a nation 'in its current form' since Hawaii became a state..

UK. 1704 I think. Queen Anne.

I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Jim

china. at least 221BC. beat that.

Are we talking countries or governments?

As for countries, the UK trumps the US, as you would have to consider the additions of Northern Ireland and Alaska as the final dates of formation. As for governments, I would have to say the US, with the adoption of the Constitution in ?1791? (don't forget the 12 years under the Articles of Confederation), where as the current UK government is very recent, with the recent formation of an independent Scottish Parliament. (That did happen, right? Or was it voted down after all?)

china. at least 221BC. beat that.

Didn't the mongols take China?

china. at least 221BC. beat that.

Are we talking factual or mythical dates here? Because Japan can beat your 221 B.C. if we don't worry about supporting facts.

Are we talking factual or mythical dates here? Because Japan can beat your 221 B.C. if we don't worry about supporting facts.

most people recognise the establishment of the Qin Dynasty to be the beginning of the nation of China, and that's 221BC. dates can go as further back as 3000B.C. to the Shang Dynasty, the first united government established in China.

A unified Japan didn't exist until much later.

Technically, the United Kingdom, as it's last border change was in 1922, and the last one of the USA was in 1959.

most people recognise the establishment of the Qin Dynasty to be the beginning of the nation of China, and that's 221BC. dates can go as further back as 3000B.C. to the Shang Dynasty, the first united government established in China.

A unified Japan didn't exist until much later.

Yeah, a factually backed date for a Japanese kingdom is around 500 A.D., obtained from Chinese documents of a Japanese envoy to China. Evidence does indicate Japan being older, dating about the same time as the unification of Korea.

But the Mythilogical date is much older, with the first Emperor being about 6,000 B.C. :p

Yeah, a factually backed date for a Japanese kingdom is around 500 A.D., obtained from Chinese documents of a Japanese envoy to China. Evidence does indicate Japan being older, dating about the same time as the unification of Korea.

But the Mythilogical date is much older, with the first Emperor being about 6,000 B.C. :p

the legend goes that the boys and girls Qin Shi Huang sent to the far east to obtain a medicine which would give him everlasting life became the first inhabitants of japan.

well...technically...if you consider a country a nation unruled by a monarchy...the U.S.


Why on earth would you consider a country a nation unruled by a Monarchy? Is England not a country? How about Spain?

Of course, theoretically the United Kingdom isn't actually a country, it's an economic union. It's, I think, a wierd grey area.

More to the point, why does the UK even exist? What a pointless hangover from a by-gone age. Much like the monarchy, I suppose. I say devolve power to seperate National governments ruled by democratically elected heads of state (including England).


As always, we are but followers in Billys footsteps...

Billy Bragg- Take Down The Union Jack

Take down the Union Jack,
it clashes with the sunset
And put it in the attic
with the emperors old clothes
When did it all fall apart?
Sometime in the 80s
When the Great and the Good
gave way to the greedy and the mean

Britain isnt cool you know,
its really not that great
Its not a proper country,
it doesnt even have a patron saint
Its just an economic union thats passed its sell by date.

Take down the union jack,
it clashes with the sunset
And ask our scottish neighbours
if independence looks any good
'Cos they just might understand
how to take an abstract notion
Of personal identity and turn it into nationhood

Is this the 19th century that im watching on tv?
The dear old queen of england handing out those mbes
Member of the british empire - that doesnt sound good to me

Gilbert and George are taking the piss arent they?
Gilbert and george are taking the piss
What could be more british than "here's a picture of my bum"
Gilbert and George are taking the piss

Take down the Union Jack,
it clashes with the sunset
And pile those history books,
but dont throw them away
They might just have some clues about what it realy means
To be an anglo hyphen saxon in england.co.uk

the legend goes that the boys and girls Qin Shi Huang sent to the far east to obtain a medicine which would give him everlasting life became the first inhabitants of japan.

Huh, I didn't know the Chinese had a legend for Japan. It must have been added after the first envoys from Japan, as the documents clearly show that the Chinese had no clue that Japan existed before then, let alone where Japan was.

The Japanese legend, as recorded from the teachings of Shinto, is that the son of the Sun goddess descended from the heavens and became the first Emperor. That is why the Emperor of Japan was believed to be divine, and called the Sun Emperor. The inhabitants of Japan were created by the gods, as were the islands themselves, and thus the name 'Land of the Gods.' All foreigners were believed to have come forth from the hells, and thus were inferior. Explains a lot about Japanese history, don't you think?

Huh, I didn't know the Chinese had a legend for Japan. It must have been added after the first envoys from Japan, as the documents clearly show that the Chinese had no clue that Japan existed before then, let alone where Japan was.

The Japanese legend, as recorded from the teachings of Shinto, is that the son of the Sun goddess descended from the heavens and became the first Emperor. That is why the Emperor of Japan was believed to be divine, and called the Sun Emperor. The inhabitants of Japan were created by the gods, as were the islands themselves, and thus the name 'Land of the Gods.' All foreigners were believed to have come forth from the hells, and thus were inferior. Explains a lot about Japanese history, don't you think?

ah well, every civilisation which was based in a permanent town all thought they were superior.

ah well, every civilisation which was based in a permanent town all thought they were superior.

I would say that pretty much sums it up. Did we get a little off topic with this history discussion?

I would say that pretty much sums it up. Did we get a little off topic with this history discussion?

HIJACK!

The thread title says "which country is older". i still think china. strictly not hijack. ;)

More to the point, why does the UK even exist? What a pointless hangover from a by-gone age. Much like the monarchy, I suppose. I say devolve power to seperate National governments ruled by democratically elected heads of state (including England).
I would think that federalism would be a smart way to go, that way you get some of the benefits of decentralisation of government, but not all the disadvantages of it. For example, it probably makes sense to have schools fairly locally run, but on the other hand, having an national armed force is much more efficient than having four individual ones for Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Mind you, your opinion is much better (IMO) than those who want to reunify the commonwealth, including places like Australia.

HIJACK!

The thread title says "which country is older". i still think china. strictly not hijack.
Since most people here are defining the birth of the nation by the political creation, I'd say that China is youngest, being only formed in 1949.

Since most people here are defining the birth of the nation by the political creation, I'd say that China is youngest, being only formed in 1949.

FIRST UNIFIED EMPIRE IN CHINA: 221B.C.!!!!!

FIRST REPUBLIC IN CHINA: believe it or not, sometime around 1000 B.C.

FIRST UNIFIED EMPIRE IN CHINA: 221B.C.!!!!!

FIRST REPUBLIC IN CHINA: believe it or not, sometime around 1000 B.C.

That doesn't change the fact that China in its current form has only been around since 1949, and that seems to be the criteria for this discussion.

Yes, but it became the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" after that in 1801, and then the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1927.

Yes, but you asked which country is older, not which name is older.

Scotland was unified in the 9th century; England has existed as a unified entity since the 10th century; the union between England and Wales, begun in 1284 with the Statute of Rhuddlan, was not formalized until 1536 with an Act of Union; in another Act of Union in 1707, England and Scotland agreed to permanently join as Great Britain; the legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was implemented in 1801, with the adoption of the name the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 formalized a partition of Ireland; six northern Irish counties remained part of the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland and the current name of the country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was adopted in 1927

USA gained independence from the UK in 1776.

Yes. The United Kingdom as we know it today was not established until 1801. The USA got its independence in 1776, so it is therefore older than Britain. However, Great Britain dates back to the early 18th century.

So which country is older - the United States or the United Kingdom?
UK... DUH! Since it was founded by the Anglos, Saxons and Normans in the early years of anno dominus. And, not on ythe basis of who had a constitution first... UK had a kingdom first; they formed am empire, and one of the parts of that empire was part of the modern USA.

UK... DUH! Since it was founded by the Anglos, Saxons and Normans in the early years of anno dominus. And, not on ythe basis of who had a constitution first... UK had a kingdom first; they formed am empire, and one of the parts of that empire was part of the modern USA.

The country formed by Anglos, Saxons & Normans was not the UK.
Lets have a cut and paste of the relevant Acts of Union (courtesy of Wikipedia):

Act of Union 1536 joining England and Wales (as England)
Act of Union 1707 joining Scotland and England (to form Great Britain)
Act of Union 1800 joining Ireland to Great Britain (to form the United Kingdom)


Anglo-Irish Treaty separating Southern Ireland (Eire) from the UK - 1922


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but when parts of the modern USA were controlled by the British Empire, the UK did not exist - the state of Great Britain existed instead during the period when the USA came into being.

Ah, but you/they don't call yourselves "United States of America (including Alaska & Hawaii)" do they? The name has remained the same since the Declaration of Independence, no?
Yes, but it became the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" after that in 1801, and then the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1927.

Now aren't you contradictiong yourself a tad there? You say cause US was called United States from 1776, it doesn't matter if it expanded later (to include Alaska and Hawaii), but it does matter that the UK expanded in 1927. Surely if you accept one premise (when was the first time the country was called US) is valid, then the other (when was the first time the country was called UK) is also.

So which country is older - the United States or the United Kingdom?

Oh dear, one of these.

The UK existed pre-American revolution although not with the same borders. This means that the current territory is not as old as that. However, the border issue is immaterial as you don't ask 'the current UK' and 'the current US'. Before the American revolution they were simply the 13 colonies.

Therefore the UK is older because the United Kingdom existed before the United States of America as a concept, but had different borders.

So which country is older - the United States or the United Kingdom?

It would be the united states as the Act of Union of 1800, effective from 1 January 1801, brings into existence a political entity called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Why consider the union with Scottland a new nation (country) but not Ireland? I dislike the 1927 date, but the 1801 Act of Union was effectively identicle to the 1707 act. And if you want the first Act of Union, you should consider the one uniting England and Wales (1536 I think). I would have an easier time accepting that as starting date than the Union with Scotland

have to disagree. Scotland and englanded united under one crown. England simply conquered wales.

The UK existed pre-American revolution although not with the same borders.

Nope, the UK didn't exist prior to 1801. A state called 'Great Britain' existed prior to then.

Now aren't you contradictiong yourself a tad there? You say cause US was called United States from 1776, it doesn't matter if it expanded later (to include Alaska and Hawaii), but it does matter that the UK expanded in 1927.

IIRC (this is a pretty old thread that got grave-dug) My point was that the act of union which created the 'UK' was the important date, I probably just noted the change with regard to Eire for the sake of completeness.

Prior to 1801 the UK did not exist: a state called Great Britatin did.
It is true that the borders of the UK have changed since then, but it remains the United Kingdom, even though the countries which are united in it have altered somewhat.

USA gained independence from the UK in 1776.

Nope, the UK did not exist in 1776. A state called Great Britain, which then later became part of the UK did however exist.

Historically 'united kingdom' begins life in "informal use" during the 18th century to describe the newly combined nation of England and Scotland. It becomes official in 1800 in the act of union with ireland (as mentioned earlier), when the enlarged kingdom is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The earlier Act of Union, of 1707, states merely that England and Scotland shall 'be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain'.

Did i kill the thread???

Nah more likely everyones alseep or at work/studying

Did i kill the thread???

Nah more likely everyones alseep or at work/studying

oh well

have to disagree. Scotland and englanded united under one crown. England simply conquered wales.Ah but the trick is that England and Wales were seperate kingdoms (small "k") until the act of union, the Act of Union made them one country (de jure at least) and one nation. If we are considering when the nation consisting of various kingdoms in the British Islands currently known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norhern Ireland came about, then the union with Wales is certainly a better starting point than the union with Scotland. Wales had been conquered (although not subdued) for a good 3 centuries before the union with England, but was ruled as a seperate kingdom much like England was conquered by the Dule of Normandy for a good many years and run as a seperate kingdom from the Duchy (part of the Kingdom of France) by the Dukes of Normandy.

UK is older.

UK is older.
Clang! The UK didn't exist until 1801. Do you want to play again?

I'd say the UK is older, but if you're going solely by the age of the name, the UK is younger when The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came around in 1927, though Great Britain [which is what I usually call the UK] has existed for a much longer time..

In any case, France is older than the two, it dates back to 486 CE when Clovis I united the Frankish tribes into one kingdom. Japan is even older than that when in, 660 BC, Japan was established by Emperor Jimmu.

ok, im going to ignore the issue of names, because that complicates issues a hell of a lot. the UK in various forms is around 1000 years old, starting off as England (which i suppose is older than that, but im working from the Norman conquest). Now, England gradually absorbed areas beside it, so over the next 700 years it took on Wales and Scotland, and then Ireland as well. So it has remained the same country with traditions dating back that long, but just because it has changed its name doesnt mean it is a different country. if the UK changed its name tomorrow, it would still be the same country in essence, same laws, same parliamentary system, same jdicial system, same head of state etc, just with a different name.

So which country is older - the United States or the United Kingdom?
You made this exact same thread on the old forums dude

You made this exact same thread on the old forums dude

Nah: this is that exact same thread come back to haunt me - for some reason it just keeps getting gravedug. Check the dates if you doubt my word.

if the UK changed its name tomorrow, it would still be the same country in essence, same laws, same parliamentary system, same jdicial system, same head of state etc, just with a different name.

Yes, but would it be the same country if it lost one of the constituent nations which comprise it?

Nah: this is that exact same thread come back to haunt me - for some reason it just keeps getting gravedug. Check the dates if you doubt my word.
Ooh so it is! Why do people revive dead threads!

Ooh so it is! Why do people revive dead threads!

Beats me - particularly with regard to ones as banal as this one.

Yes, but would it be the same country if it lost one of the constituent nations which comprise it?
if that happened then yes it would be the same country, same legal system, same parliamentary system etc, just with less land to control. if a state left the USA, would it be the same country? of course it would.

if that happened then yes it would be the same country, same legal system, same parliamentary system etc, just with less land to control. if a state left the USA, would it be the same country? of course it would.

Well, to state the obvious - Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have their own form of devolved parliament (with great variations between them) while England does not, but houses the UK parliament* - if England left the UK, then there would definitely be a major change in parliamentary system, while for the others the case is debatable. Similarly England/Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland all have their own forms of legal systems, so claiming that the same legal system would be kept is glossing over the issue somewhat.


* Contrast this to the USA, where the seat of parliament is not in a state but in an administrative district (or whatever the exact term for Washington DC is).



*****
Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
Which bit of my city are you in?

Northern Ireland currently doesnt have a devolved parliament and is ruled directly from Westminster. Obviously if England left it would change alot, but when i said the UK was older i said that it started as England and took over the other countries, so if England left the UK then that would mean England was carrying on on its own where it was before it took over Wales, Scotland NI etc, so while alot would change it wouldnt change the age of the country as i see it. This can be said of the US as well, where it started off as the original 13 (?) states and gradually incorporated the others, it just didnt change its name whereas the UK did - although it remained essentially the same country. As for the seperate legal systems, they are all ultimately answerable to the House of Lords and the Privy Council (if it even still exists), and that has been the same for hundreds of years. Surely in the US each state has its own courts and all that comes with them, but are ultimately answerable to the Supreme Court, or so im led to believe. So, there isnt really that much difference. well, obviously there is, but the impact of an area leaving or joining on its existance as a country is the same ie: it remains the same country albeit with an enlargened or reduced land area.

ah youre a Belfast man yourself, im living just outside Finaghy in the south, beside the Mary Peters Track if you know where that is. whereabouts are you?

ah youre a Belfast man yourself, im living just outside Finaghy in the south, beside the Mary Peters Track if you know where that is. whereabouts are you?

Yeah - I know Finaghy well enough. Is the clothes shop called 'Finicky Fashions' still going? I'm in the Holylands myself.

Northern Ireland currently doesnt have a devolved parliament and is ruled directly from Westminster.


Well, it has the Assembly, which is currently suspended, which I alluded to above. It may not be currently in operation but it still exists.

Obviously if England left it would change alot, but when i said the UK was older i said that it started as England and took over the other countries, so if England left the UK then that would mean England was carrying on on its own where it was before it took over Wales, Scotland NI etc, so while alot would change it wouldnt change the age of the country as i see it. This can be said of the US as well, where it started off as the original 13 (?) states and gradually incorporated the others, it just didnt change its name whereas the UK did - although it remained essentially the same country.

The name change was the initial point of this thread: prior to 1801 the UK didn't exist, but Great Britain did. Really it has since entered into the realm of imponderables, as to exactly what form the UK would take if England was to break away.

What would be the point of England breaking away? We need the other countries to test taxes on. The only way England could break away would be to let Wales, NI and Scotland sod off.

What would be the point of England breaking away?

Freedom from the burden of having deal with Northern Ireland? The fact that all the Welsh, Scots & Northern Irish hate the English? The threat of war over the 'West Lothian Question'?

yea thats true, gone a wee bit off topic. my point was that the country has existed in some form since 1066 really, whereas the USA has only existed since the war of independence. but i think we could probably agree to disagree, suppose it all hangs on what youre definition of a country or what have you is.

and yea i think that shops still there lol, were not too far apart then really.

The fact that all the Welsh, Scots & Northern Irish hate the English?
this is true. im a unionist and i still cant stand the english.