NationStates Jolt Archive

Well it seems I just may have started a war here witch was not my intention.
I admit that I know litle about the U.K. issue as it is today nor did I say I did.

My sincere apologies to all the BRITISH people here but I only wanted to know how the system worked in the UK.


This thread is now open for all to talk about what they want, a BS thread if you will.

Regards,
North Island

It's a part of British Common law called "royal perogative". These are a series of powers which the royals used to have which over a long period of time have now been passed down to the PM.

er...the Queen Mothers dead

The Monarch is head of state and so nominally Commander in Chief, i suppose it dates back to a long time ago when the Kings would lead their army into battle, maybe giving their sons a group to lead to give them experience

these days its just symbolic for tradition and stuff like that, as far as i know the royal family doesnt actually do anything with the army (unless they sign up), theyre just figureheads

Tradition I guess. Stems from the King leading troops into battle and the other members of the royal family and important officials would be generals of their private armies.
Ever seen 'cause of death' in the Royal family's tree?

Okay, I do not understand how you guys do it in England (U.K.).
Why is it you give your royal people commanding status in the military?
Eg. The Black Watch is a Scottish Regiment but you have English people commanding it (Let's face it they are English).

Colonels in Chief
1912.09.03 F.M. HM King George V
1937.05.13 HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
2003.07.01 Maj-Gen. HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, KG, KT,GCB, AK, QSO, ADC

How the hell do you give command of a military regiment to the Queen mother of England and the Prince of Wales? Does he even have military training (If so probably the Navy, right)?


The royal family are often given ceremonial titles. It's tradition.

Yes Prince Charles was in the Navy, but like the monarch is a ceremonial leader of the country he is the ceremonial figure head of the military. It's tradition.

And Scotland is part of the UK, so he is head of a UK regiment, with UK people in it..

Don't really know why. I suppose its traditional, dating back from the time nobles raised armies for the king, and really this is just a modern version of this. Of course, the regiments are not really commanded by the incompetant bastards, when some real work comes, it is handed to the professionals. Anyway, I know you said this isn't a "Are the Royal Family English or Not?" thread, but the whole point of the regiments thing is that they are bosses of Scotland as well, through desent from James I of England/VI of Scotland.

Anyway, you say "Brits" but bleat on about the English.

How is this any different to the President of the US being the commander in chief of all US forces? The president may have, or may not have military experience.
The British crown princes are sent through the military academy at Sandringham, as a matter of duty. They do have military training. It only breaks down when the line of inheritence fails, as occured with Elizabeth IInd coming to the throne. Or, in the past when there were only princesses, no princes.

The US President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

Of course, in the US, that supposedly translates to having a civilian in charge of the military (i.e., even the highest ranking general has to do what the civilians want), and by the Constitution, the military cannot go to war without the permission of Congress, so once again, the civilians are in charge.

In the old days, before representative government, the supreme executive was the King. By and large, they either had some military experience, or had a large number of advisers in that regard.

One might consider the first Queen Elizabeth, who, though having no direct military experience of her own, did have intelligent advisers.

It is a mistake to believe that a Commander in Chief will actually formulate the details of any war plan. It is a serious mistake. If you want to make sure your Army loses (whether the German Army under Hitler or the US Army in Vietnam), just try to micromanage it from the Commander in Chief level.

It is the Commander in Chief's job to be the interface between civilian political desires and the military's capabilities. The CINC tells the military "what" needs to be done, not "how" to do it.

Everytime you tell them "how", it bites you in the ass. Whether it was Hitler telling his army to guard Calais instead of Normandy, or Clinton telling the Rangers in Somalia that they could not have or use an AC-130 or armored vehicles, or McNamara micromanaging the Vietnam War in terms of body count, or Bush's men micromanaging the interrogation techniques - it all comes back around and goes right up your ass.

Yes, yes, it's all well and good for the President to receive an overall briefing on how things are going, and what the overall plan might be.

I'm sure that the current Queen knows that UK civilians want Parliament and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence to run the military - so I would bet that unless there was an extreme crisis, she would stay out of everything except appearing at parades and chirstening ships.

Originally, the nobles would have their own armies, or militia, these were eventually united when the crown manged to unite the nobles, the armies then coming under the collective command of the Crown, through the nobility. This, as the armies became stronger and more professional, meant that the crown was the commander of the armies, not good if they happen to be a psycho (as very often was the case). Nowadays it is ceremonial although in theory, they could command the army, navy air force etc.

What does KG, KT, GCB, AK, QSO, ADC mean?
Why do most regiments belong to Dukes, Princes, Kings, Queens, Lords etc.?
Do they command it and are they like his or hers personal unit for personal use?



OK. I know a couple of the abreviations.

KG = Knight of the Garter
KT = Knight Templar

Less seriously
QSO = Quasi Stellar object (quasar) :eek:

Regiments.
In the long ago times of the feudal world, the Aristocracy were granted ownership of lands by the moarch in return for providing protection for that land and soldiers, or a regiment, for the defence of the realm. These regiments still exist today, not funded the same way, but with the tradition of having been the regiment provided by the Duke of Lancashire, or whoever. Hence the names.

The postion of Regimental Colonels in Cheif has been a largely ceremonial postion since the late 1700s-early 1800s or there about, previously regimental colonels actually owned thier regiments

The postion is more akin the Patron roles that royals hold in the various major charities and Youth organisations.

Anyway, you say "Brits" but bleat on about the English.
Well, the British people would now this, right?

I also said Prince of Wales, Scotland and UK.
The Black Watch is a Scottish Regiment from Scotland is it not. You may not think of Scotland, England and Wales as nations but you do think of them as regions and thus you can say Scottish Regiment.
You can call your royals the Royal family of England, Scotland, Wales, UK and Britain because they are all of those things. Isnt old Liz the II of England and the I of Scotland or the other way around?
England is part of Britain and you can say, when talking about Britain, that someone is English, Scottish or Welsh depending on the region they are from.

Royalty are important for tradition, although a lot of people like to say that they don't do a job, actually they do. they don't really command the regiments etc, just like being queen doesn't give her any MAJOR powers, they got taken away more and more in history, first by the magna carta and then more by other things(civil war helps).

They are dignatories, like we have ambassadors they visit other countries, show Britains nice face and do some nice little diplomatic showing off, no talks but just by being there its like having George Bush go on holiday in the UK, he wouldn't if he had any brains but anyway...

They don't actually exercise command over said units, they are just the official commanders. It's good because it seperates Parliament from miltiary command, theoetically making a military coup impossible.

As for English people commanding Scottish people, I find this stupid, ignorant and plain insulting American view that England commands and oppresses Scotland very irritating. We are a UNITED KINGDOM. The Queen is the Queen of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. She is not just the Queen of England who happens to control Scotland too.

As for English people commanding Scottish people, I find this stupid, ignorant and plain insulting American view that England commands and oppresses Scotland very irritating. We are a UNITED KINGDOM. The Queen is the Queen of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. She is not just the Queen of England who happens to control Scotland too.

I'm an American, and I don't hold the view that Scotland is somehow oppressed.

Maybe back in the day when Scotland was conquered, and its inhabitants driven off the land (or starved, or butchered, or sent to Nova Scotia), but that was a long, long time ago.

We drove Native Americans off the land in South Dakota. It doesn't make South Dakota an "oppressed state" at the present time.

I changed some of the text so it would be more U.K. friendly.

Hope you BRITISH people will stop talking about this OFF TOPIC issue.

Isn't the Blackwatch a Canadian regiment based in Montreal?
Or is there two Blackwatch regiment?

the Queen's main role in international affairs now is to be an advisor to the PM. They meet once a week and most PMs with the exception of Thatcher value the input of someone who isn't out for thier own ends and has been at the heart of British politics for 50 years, it is very useful.

Also the very same tradition that keeps royal family members as ceremonial commanders of regimentsmeans that are regiments have names, not numbers unlike America.

I'm an American, and I don't hold the view that Scotland is somehow oppressed.

Maybe back in the day when Scotland was conquered, and its inhabitants driven off the land (or starved, or butchered, or sent to Nova Scotia), but that was a long, long time ago.

We drove Native Americans off the land in South Dakota. It doesn't make South Dakota an "oppressed state" at the present time.


Do you have any idea how Pist Off the native Americans are at you people?

This is off topic but it's just stupid to think that every thing is just dandy with you and the natives.

Isn't the Blackwatch a Canadian regiment based in Montreal?
Or is there two Blackwatch regiment?

One is in Canada and the other is in Scotland a.k.a Britain a.k.a United Kingdom

The Blackwatch is a British regiment. There may be others elsewhere, but I believe its one of the longest serving Royal Army regiments.

Another thing, Prince Andrew, Prince Charles, and the Duke of Edinburgh all have active military experience. Phil the Greek has medals for his service in the WW2 North Atlantic convoys as a destroyer captain.


I could also ask why you have George Bush as the commander-in-chief of the US military? IIRC, the President is CINC right? Did all the American presidents have military experience? I personally take absolutely zero interest in American history or politics, so I don't know.

One is in Canada and the other is in Scotland a.k.a Britain a.k.a United Kingdom
Thanks.

the Queen's main role in international affairs now is to be an advisor to the PM. They meet once a week and most PMs with the exception of Thatcher value the input of someone who isn't out for thier own ends and has been at the heart of British politics for 50 years, it is very useful.

Also the very same tradition that keeps royal family members as ceremonial commanders of regimentsmeans that are regiments have names, not numbers unlike America.

Sorry, let me correct you. They are supposed to meet once a week. Blair hardly does, and can't follow simple decorum when he does meet her. Hardly befits the leader of Her Majesties Government does it?

Queen is the Queen of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. She is not just the Queen of England who happens to control Scotland too.

Down with the monarchy! Lets have a republic!

What does KG, KT, GCB, AK, QSO, ADC mean?


I know:
KG = Knight of the order of the Garter
GCB = Knight Grand Commander of the order of the Bath
ADC = Aide-De-Camp

and I think KT is Knight of the order of the Thistle, QSO Queen's Service Order, AK Knight of the order of Australia

Down with the monarchy! Lets have a republic!

careful now

Do you have any idea how Pist Off the native Americans are at you people?

This is off topic but it's just stupid to think that every thing is just dandy with you and the natives.

"You people" does not apply to me.

Neither of my parents were in the United States prior to 1954. And I wasn't born until 1960. I am not responsible for the driving of Native Americans off their land any more than you are. And, since none of my ancestors ever owned slaves in the US prior to the US Civil War, I'm not responsible for slavery, either.

Not my problem. NMFP.

"You people" does not apply to me.

Neither of my parents were in the United States prior to 1954. And I wasn't born until 1960. I am not responsible for the driving of Native Americans off their land any more than you are. And, since none of my ancestors ever owned slaves in the US prior to the US Civil War, I'm not responsible for slavery, either.

Not my problem. NMFP.

NMFP code for?

You did say "WE" .Do you really think they look at family records when they look for people to hate or blame? It is sad that people that did not have family involved in the matter get blamed but skin color does still matter and that is what they look at. Some thing never change I guess but hey, this is off topic so lets just stop.

Sorry, let me correct you. They are supposed to meet once a week. Blair hardly does, and can't follow simple decorum when he does meet her. Hardly befits the leader of Her Majesties Government does it?
thats just because he thinks his name begins with President

NMFP code for?

You did say "WE" .Do you really think they look at family records when they look for people to hate or blame? It is sad that people that did not have family involved in the matter get blamed but skin color does still matter and that is what they look at. Some thing never change I guess but hey, this is off topic so lets just stop.

I'm Korean. I just happen to have been born in the United States. Now you look really silly.

NM - F - P
Not My - F - Problem.

As an Englishman I am proud to be English. As a Briton, I am proud to be British. They are different things however; the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is the combination of Great Britain - the big island that looks like a rabbit containing England, Wales and Scotland; a bunch of little islands and the province in Northern Ireland.

You can't really compare the Scots to Native Americans.
Its not like the English drove the Scots into the sea... admittadly you could cite Edward Longshanks and others but I suspect you've been watching too much Braveheart - in reality (with much gentle ribbing) we usually get/got on fine throughout history. It took a Scottish King to unite the crown.

For those who forget, we *have* been a republic. For a few years after the civil war two parliaments and Cromwell couldn't restore order and Charles II was invited to rule (with much reduced power).

thats just because he thinks his name begins with President
If your PM does not follow the royal regs. it kind of makes you think how long it will be before the howl nation stops respecting the old ways and just forms a republic.

If your PM does not follow the royal regs. it kind of makes you think how long it will be before the howl nation stops respecting the old ways and just forms a republic.
Its pretty much just Bliar (well its not, but its a minority), the majority of the country want to keep the Monarch as Head of State

As an Englishman I am proud to be English. As a Briton, I am proud to be British. They are different things however; the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is the combination of Great Britain - the big island that looks like a rabbit containing England, Wales and Scotland; a bunch of little islands and the province in Northern Ireland.


all right until you called Northern Ireland a province :p

Ulster (9 counties) is the Province , Northern Ireland (6 counties) is the region of the UK

I'm Korean. I just happen to have been born in the United States. Now you look really silly.

NM - F - P
Not My - F - Problem.

Not really. You said that WE drove the natives off their lands, implying that you were white or your people had some part in it as it was white soldiers and others that did that.
But I see what you meant to say and that was WE as in WE AMERICANS, right?

It's the prime minister and the government who commands the military not the Queen.. The British government is made up of people from all over the UK.

I'm with McLeod03. Like with the American President, the Royal Family's titles are little more than relics of an archaic age.
The Royal Family are very little more than a novelty for tourists, a source of gossip for the tabolids, and (often very poor) representatives of the country abroad. The amount we pay for these 'services' is an absolute disgrace. Firstly that we praise the obscenely rich for nothing more than the fact they were born, secondly that we dont even tax them for living here!!

all right until you called Northern Ireland a province :p

Ulster (9 counties) is the Province , Northern Ireland (6 counties) is the region of the UK

Thanks! Geography - political in particular - was never my stong point. (too complicated) ;)

Okay, I do not understand how you guys do it in Britain.
Why is it you give your royal people commanding status in the military?
Eg. The Black Watch is a Scottish Regiment but you have English people commanding it (Let's face it they are English).

Colonels in Chief
1912.09.03 F.M. HM King George V
1937.05.13 HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
2003.07.01 Maj-Gen. HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, KG, KT,GCB, AK, QSO, ADC

How the hell do you give command of a military regiment to the Queen mother of Britain and the Prince of Wales? Does he even have military training (If so probably the Navy, right)?
[/B]

The titles are purely ceremonial. In the 1980s, the commander in chief of the Queens Regiment, based in east kent, was in fact Queen Margarethe of Denmark. Most of the royals have undertaken military service as a matter of tradition. Prince Charles did serve with the Royal Navy, but later transfered his commision to the army. Prince Andrew served with distinction as a Royal Navy seaking pilot during the Falklands War and made the navy a full career, reaching the rank of Commander. Princess Anne served briefly with the WRENs (womens section of the navy) and is now honorary CinC of the Wrens. Prince Edward trained with the Royal Marine Commandoes (the best fighting force in the world!) but couldn't handle it and woosed out.

I'm an American, and I don't hold the view that Scotland is somehow oppressed.

Maybe back in the day when Scotland was conquered, and its inhabitants driven off the land (or starved, or butchered, or sent to Nova Scotia), but that was a long, long time ago.

We drove Native Americans off the land in South Dakota. It doesn't make South Dakota an "oppressed state" at the present time.

Errr... Scotland was never conquered by England. There have been brief periods of military occupation, for example from 1297-1314 (garrisons dwindling rapidly from 1306 -- death of Edward I -- to 1314 -- Bannockburn and removal of last garrison at Stirling castle; after which the war tended to be fought across the north of England until the English sued for peace in 1328), or during Cromwell's Commonwealth (which was entirely the fault of mad Scottish presbyterian ayatollahs, without whom Cromwell would have been crushed at Dunbar, but that's another story).

The Union of the Crowns (1603) occurred when James VI of Scotland peacefully inherited the English throne when Elizabeth I of England died childless. The Union of the Parliaments happened in 1707 when the Scottish Parliament voted by a majority to amalgamate with the English one at Westminster. The various Jacobite rebellions of the 18th century (1715 and 1745, for example) were British civil wars. Although most of the Jacobite/Catholic supporters were from the Highlands, not all of them were, and by no means all the Highlanders were Jacobites (e.g. the Campbells, probably the largest and most powerful clan of the time). There were, for example, more Scots on the Hanoverian/Protestant side at Culloden than there were fighting for Charles Stuart.

The oppression of Highland clans and culture which followed Culloden, including the Highland Clearances, were mostly carried out by Scots against Scots. The perceived "ethnic divide" at the time was between the Gaelic-speaking Highland Scots and the Scots/English-speaking Lowland Scots.

I'm with McLeod03. Like with the American President, the Royal Family's titles are little more than relics of an archaic age.
The Royal Family are very little more than a novelty for tourists, a source of gossip for the tabolids, and (often very poor) representatives of the country abroad. The amount we pay for these 'services' is an absolute disgrace. Firstly that we praise the obscenely rich for nothing more than the fact they were born, secondly that we dont even tax them for living here!!



err, the royals do pay tax now

Eg. The Black Watch is a Scottish Regiment but you have English people commanding it (Let's face it they are English).
...
Do not start to talk about 'Is the royal family English or not' or England-UK issues etc. Please

You can't make an utterly false and potentially offensive and stupid statement such as that and then expect us to not talk about it.

err, the royals do pay tax now

Well, sort of -- it's really up to them what tax they choose to pay, based on what "earnings" they choose to declare. Hence the recent hoo-haa about the accounts for the Duchy of Cornwall: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4242213.stm

err, the royals do pay tax now

We pay the Queen.

The monarchy brings a lot of benefits to the country as well don't forget so I think having a small amount of our tax going towards funding the monarchy and it's activities is perfectly ok.

The monarchy brings a lot of benefits to the country as well don't forget so I think having a small amount of our tax going towards funding the monarchy and it's activities is perfectly ok.

The biggest problem with the monarchy and its position in the UK is constitutional. Britain doesn't have a constitution in the modern sense, i.e. a written, legally-binding declaration of rights, privileges and responsibilities under which we are all equal. Instead we have the lunatic situation whereby laws can be passed which apply to individuals -- hence Charles and his voluntary taxes, various individuals and the plans to lock them up forever in their own homes without trial or possibility of appeal, etc. etc. We also have the lingering remnants of monarchical power, which amonst other little things permits its wielder -- the Prime Minister -- to unilaterally declare war. By himself. Asking Parliament for its opinion is merely polite.

I'd prefer not to have a monarchy. I dislike the idea that some people are better than others, simply by virtue of their birth (especially since our own dear royals have been paddling around in the shallow end of the gene pool for several generations now). But I'd live with them if they were only just a picturesque relic of a bygone age, instead of a bubbling repository of autocratic power. This isn't their fault, and they personally don't have anything to do with the issue. Nevertheless, the theoretical absolute power of the Crown is a genuine and continuing threat to British democracy -- which is none too democratic to begin with.

I'm with McLeod03. Like with the American President, the Royal Family's titles are little more than relics of an archaic age.
The Royal Family are very little more than a novelty for tourists, a source of gossip for the tabolids, and (often very poor) representatives of the country abroad. The amount we pay for these 'services' is an absolute disgrace. Firstly that we praise the obscenely rich for nothing more than the fact they were born, secondly that we dont even tax them for living here!!

Hey buddy, don't say you're on me side then proceed to slag off the monarchy. I'm a monarchist through and through. They probably give the country more than they get back through the increased tourism awarded by having a monarchy. You tell me the last time you went past Buckingham Palace during the Changing of the Guard and there weren't hundreds of tourists outside it snapping away with cameras.

the Queen's main role in international affairs now is to be an advisor to the PM. They meet once a week and most PMs with the exception of Thatcher value the input of someone who isn't out for thier own ends and has been at the heart of British politics for 50 years, it is very useful.

Also the very same tradition that keeps royal family members as ceremonial commanders of regimentsmeans that are regiments have names, not numbers unlike America.


The reverse is also true, in that it is the PM's role to advise the Queen on his/her governments wishes in relation to the country.

The monarch is entitled by constitution NOT to give Royal ascent to a piece of gevernmental legistaltion, and to even overturn rulings in the courts. One example of this being the commutation of the death penalty in the event of a conviction for treason.

The upshot of this being that, at least theoretically, the monarch may attempt to rule in practise, over the wishes of the people and the government, rather than in a consitutional form only. This however, will never happen, as we, the people, would not allow it.

Hey buddy, don't say you're on me side then proceed to slag off the monarchy. I'm a monarchist through and through. They probably give the country more than they get back through the increased tourism awarded by having a monarchy. You tell me the last time you went past Buckingham Palace during the Changing of the Guard and there weren't hundreds of tourists outside it snapping away with cameras.

This is an untested proposition: we'd need to get rid of the royals for a few years and see if there's a notable drop in tourism. Has France's tourist industry suffered from an absence of monarchs? Would you be more inclined to visit Paris if you had a half-chance of catching a glimpse of an inbred, overpaid Bourbon farting about in the Tuilleries?

Nevertheless, the theoretical absolute power of the Crown is a genuine and continuing threat to British democracy -- which is none too democratic to begin with.

As opposed to America? oh, please.

Hey buddy, don't say you're on me side then proceed to slag off the monarchy. I'm a monarchist through and through. They probably give the country more than they get back through the increased tourism awarded by having a monarchy. You tell me the last time you went past Buckingham Palace during the Changing of the Guard and there weren't hundreds of tourists outside it snapping away with cameras.

Yeah, i realised after i'd written it that it might seem to be putting words in your mouth, sorry. I'd wrote soemthing about the Americans having a President as Cheif in Command, then noticed your post about it. Thats all i meant.
And countries without monarchies (America, for example) seem to do pretty well out of tourism. I'm not sure all those tourists woudl just dissapear. Then again, i don't know the stats.

You can't make an utterly false and potentially offensive and stupid statement such as that and then expect us to not talk about it.

When I said English I was talking about the royal family witch for the most part is English and there is nothing wrong with that. You are reading to much into it.
My point is that the regiment is Scottish and the leader (Prince of Wales), an Englishman, is it's head chief. I know you are a united kingdom but your are different in nationality as in some are from England and others from Scotland, Wales, N- Ireland etc. It's kind of like a Canadian commanding an American regiment if the two countries were united, in a sence. I know it is not the best eg. because they are not united in any way but think about it, i'm talking about the native nationality if you can understand that. Even if the country is united it only seems right for a Scotsman to command a Scottish regiment and an Englishman to command an English regiment etc.
Your naive and very sad post makes me believe that you will not understand what I mean.

I'm sorry, that was a complete load of crap.

In modern times, places like Wales and Scotland are much like (though not exactly) the way you see States in the United States.

They are part of a greater whole - a whole that is composed of all of the parts - not ruled by England, but ruled together. Hence members of Parliament from various parts of the United Kingdom.

The Queen, in this system, is essentially a prop - a pantomime horse in fancy clothing.

Someone needs to turn up the heat in your apartment, the Icelandic cold is getting to your head.

I'm sorry, that was a complete load of crap.

In modern times, places like Wales and Scotland are much like (though not exactly) the way you see States in the United States.

They are part of a greater whole - a whole that is composed of all of the parts - not ruled by England, but ruled together. Hence members of Parliament from various parts of the United Kingdom.

The Queen, in this system, is essentially a prop - a pantomime horse in fancy clothing.

Someone needs to turn up the heat in your apartment, the Icelandic cold is getting to your head.

I get the joke, not really funny. Sorry!
If you want to get into this then fine.
I have many Scottish friends in RL and have met many others on my trips also Irishman, Welshman etc. and the one word I allways hear from them, when they are talking about England and Englisman, is Wankers. Now I don't really know what that means but what I do know is that it is not good. This is not my view on the matter!!!!!! I lived in England for two years and have friends there. Granted, many of them support the Scottish NIP but not all of them.
Scotland has now a parliment but as I understand it, from my Scottish friends, is that power is still really in Westminster (England) and that the commonwealth nations have really litle saying in Westminster.
And if you are united in one kingdom why is every nation a commonwealth except for England? Is England a commonwealth of Scotland or Wales? Tell me I really don't know.

HM The Queen Elizabet the Second has no real control over the armed forces, but she CAN prevent them from going to war, etc

That's because the commonwealth isn't a real polticial organisation. It's just former coutnries of the Empire maintaining a good relationship with the UK.
Why do commonwealth countries have little power in Westminister? Because they have nothing to do with one another!

I'm an American, and I don't hold the view that Scotland is somehow oppressed.

Maybe back in the day when Scotland was conquered, and its inhabitants driven off the land (or starved, or butchered, or sent to Nova Scotia), but that was a long, long time ago.

We drove Native Americans off the land in South Dakota. It doesn't make South Dakota an "oppressed state" at the present time.
That's just it - Scotland wasn't conquered - the royal lineages merged so one person was King of Scotland and England.

And if you are united in one kingdom why is every nation a commonwealth except for England? Is England a commonwealth of Scotland or Wales? Tell me I really don't know.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland arent commonwealth nations, they are "Home Nations", part of the UK

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland arent commonwealth nations, they are "Home Nations", part of the UK

Thank You! Home Nations, good. Now I know what they are and will probably not listen to my NIP buddy's propaganda again. ;)

I get the joke, not really funny. Sorry!
If you want to get into this then fine.
I have many Scottish friends in RL and have met many others on my trips also Irishman, Welshman etc. and the one word I allways hear from them, when they are talking about England and Englisman, is Wankers. Now I don't really know what that means but what I do know is that it is not good. This is not my view on the matter!!!!!! I lived in England for two years and have friends there. Granted, many of them support the Scottish NIP but not all of them.
Scotland has now a parliment but as I understand it, from my Scottish friends, is that power is still really in Westminster (England) and that the commonwealth nations have really litle saying in Westminster.
And if you are united in one kingdom why is every nation a commonwealth except for England? Is England a commonwealth of Scotland or Wales? Tell me I really don't know.

Anybody, from anywhere that categorises the entire population of any nation by using a derogatory term is simply not worth listeneing to.

Now to try and explain the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Commonwealth.

There are four separate countries, (Well actually six if you want to count the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. (alphabetical order). These four countries have been amalgamated, by conquest or intermarriage of their royal families, into one entity; Great Britain.
For a long time, due to economic, military and social factors, these four countries were all governed by one government, in Westminster in London.
Understandably, the three countries that had no real representation of their interests were unhappy with this, and the devolution movements arose.
This resulted in the formation of reprewsentative chambers in Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland has had a representative chamber for longer than the others, but due to the paramilitary activities, it was closed down by the British Parliament. It is, I believe running again (I am a long way from there now)

So we have four separate countries, unified under the term Great Britain.
Look at the olympic games, and you will see Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish participants making up the GB team.

The United Kingdom is a physical geographical unit. It is England, Scotland and Wales. It does not include Northern Ireland. It is the name for that big island that contains the three countries.

The Commonwealth. Hum. This is something different altogether. The British used to have an empire. A relatively big empire with strong cultural and trade links established between the various colonies. When the imperial system failed and the countries variously fought for or were given independance, thes links remained. They spoke the same language, they had established trading partners etc. The commonwealth is an organisation that allows this commonality to continue. Allows for the discussion of international affairs between these countries. It is a sort of leaderless apolitical empire. Trade and culture dominate.

Now one or two other points of relevance.

Scotland has a legal system that is different to and independant of the British one. They have always had differences in terms of how the legal system works, and local laws that had been established by judicial precedence rather than by parliament. As well as some old laws from the time when Scotland and Emglan had separate monarchies.

Northern Ireland also has a separate legal and judicial system. I know no more about this than that.


NOTE: I may have the UK and GB twisted

I hope this helped.

English kings used to take to the battlefield, most famously Henry V at the battle of Agincourt, but the last English king to ride in to battle was George II (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/george_ii_king.shtml) at the battle of Dettingen in 1743.

No. Great Britain is the geographical grouping of the islands of Britain and Ireland. Britain contains the "Political"(as opposed to geographical) Nations of England, Scotland, and Wales. Ireland holds the political nations of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The United Kingdom is the nations of Britain as well as Northern Ireland. Great Britain's geographical landmass comprises the countries of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Alien Born
Thank You very much! That was great!

No. Great Britain is the geographical grouping of the islands of Britain and Ireland. Britain contains the "Political"(as opposed to geographical) Nations of England, Scotland, and Wales. Ireland holds the political nations of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The United Kingdom is the nations of Britain as well as Northern Ireland. Great Britain's geographical landmass comprises the countries of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
Great Britain is the island of Scotland, Wales and England (plus associated small islands)

Ireland is the island of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

Thats why its the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Great Britain is the island of Scotland, Wales and England (plus associated small islands)

Ireland is the island of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

Thats why its the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

OK. I was wrong. I admit it. Sorry

OK. I was wrong. I admit it. Sorry
the rest of it was right though, well done

No. Great Britain is the geographical grouping of the islands of Britain and Ireland.

That's the geographical grouping known as the British Isles, another term to add to the fun!
Also, the United Kingdom can sometimes include overseas dependencies/territories/colonies, can't it? For example, the Falkland islands, Pitcairn island, Gibraltar and so forth.

As opposed to America? oh, please.

??

No, as opposed to my definition of "acceptably democratic" -- i.e. one with proportional representation preventing a party who gets the support of just 24% of the electorate winning a so-called "landslide", one where the upper house is actually elected by the citizens of the nation, etc etc. Who mentioned America? Dear lord, you don't think I'm an American, do you?

One is in Canada and the other is in Scotland a.k.a Britain a.k.a United Kingdom

scotland is also known as britain? by whom?

scotland != britain != UK they are different things.

Why is that so difficult? the US is made of states, right? And Canada is not part of the US? You can grasp that so why so hard to grasp the UK?

In Texas, is it against the law for a non-texan to be head of the Texas Rangers? (i don't know if texas rangers are real - i'm just using it as an example) and also, english people can be in charge of scottish regiments, and vice versa. Tim Collins who was head of the british forces in Iraq is N Irish I think.

Dear me.. no one seems to know what they're talking about.

'North Island' comes accross to me as a childish prat who seems completely clueless on the subject the UK..

I'm sorry, that was a complete load of crap.

In modern times, places like Wales and Scotland are much like (though not exactly) the way you see States in the United States.

They are part of a greater whole - a whole that is composed of all of the parts - not ruled by England, but ruled together. Hence members of Parliament from various parts of the United Kingdom.

The Queen, in this system, is essentially a prop - a pantomime horse in fancy clothing.

Someone needs to turn up the heat in your apartment, the Icelandic cold is getting to your head.


That's the truth^^

No. Great Britain is the geographical grouping of the islands of Britain and Ireland. Britain contains the "Political"(as opposed to geographical) Nations of England, Scotland, and Wales. Ireland holds the political nations of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The United Kingdom is the nations of Britain as well as Northern Ireland. Great Britain's geographical landmass comprises the countries of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

You're wrong and AlienBorn is right

Great Britain is the island that has England, Scotland and Wales in it. Which is why the UK's full title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The geographical grouping that contains the UK and the Republic of Ireland is called the "British Isles". It includes Great Britain and the island of Ireland.

scotland is also known as britain? by whom?

scotland != britain != UK they are different things.

Why is that so difficult? the US is made of states, right? And Canada is not part of the US? You can grasp that so why so hard to grasp the UK?

In Texas, is it against the law for a non-texan to be head of the Texas Rangers? (i don't know if texas rangers are real - i'm just using it as an example) and also, english people can be in charge of scottish regiments, and vice versa. Tim Collins who was head of the british forces in Iraq is N Irish I think.

A.K.A. means 'also known as'. Scotland is thus also known as Britain as well as U.K. Scotland is part of the U.K. and is one of the contries on the island of Britain, right? So I can say that.
I never said that Canada was part of the U.S.
Yes, the U.S. is made up of STATES.
But thank you for telling me that people from different regions of Britain and of N-Ireland can be in charge of different regiments.
Lets just stop this.

A.K.A. means 'also known as'. Scotland is thus also known as Britain as well as U.K. Scotland is part of the U.K. and is one of the contries on the island of Britain, right? So I can say that.
I never said that Canada was part of the U.S.
Yes, the U.S. is made up of STATES.
But thank you for telling me that people from different regions of Britain and of N-Ireland can be in charge of different regiments.
Lets just stop this.

Scotland is NOT also known as britain. That's like saying Texas is also known as the United States of America. It isn't. Ever.

Tim Collins who was head of the british forces in Iraq is N Irish I think.
not to boast at all, but Tim Collins went to my school :cool:

A.K.A. means 'also known as'. Scotland is thus also known as Britain as well as U.K. Scotland is part of the U.K. and is one of the contries on the island of Britain, right? So I can say that.
I never said that Canada was part of the U.S.
Yes, the U.S. is made up of STATES.
But thank you for telling me that people from different regions of Britain and of N-Ireland can be in charge of different regiments.
Lets just stop this.
right, this will clear it up

UK = England, Scotland, Wales, N Ireland = the name for the country
Great Britain = England, Scotland, Wales = the island these are on
Britain = England, Wales = a name for England and Wales combined

so it would be correct to say that Scotland is in Great Britain, but not to say it is it

right, this will clear it up

UK = England, Scotland, Wales, N Ireland = the name for the country
Great Britain = England, Scotland, Wales = the island these are on
Britain = England, Wales = a name for England and Wales combined

so it would be correct to say that Scotland is in Great Britain, but not to say it is it

NO! Britain != England, Wales != a name for England and Wales combined

where did you get that information? it's rubbish

Scotland is NOT also known as britain. That's like saying Texas is also known as the United States of America. It isn't. Ever.
Whatever.
Do you think when people cross the border from Mexico into Texas that the customs and immigration officers say welcome to Texas? No they say welcome to the United States but you can also say welcome to Texas if you are there.
Same with Scotland-Welcome to Scotland (the region, the country etc.) and welcome to Great Britain or the U.K.

NO! Britain != England, Wales != a name for England and Wales combined

where did you get that information? it's rubbish
its not, thats how it works


Britain is England and Wales
Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales

its not, thats how it works


Britain is England and Wales
Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales

says who?

says who?
says everybody i know...

says everybody i know...

Well, they're all wrong. Try and find a single authoritative reference. Are you some kind of republican or something?

Well, I'm British and I've never heard anyone ever say that Britain = England and Wales. I think that Britain is really just shorthand for the United Kingdom, or maybe for Great Britain (the main island).

Places like the Pitcairns and the Falklands are not strictly part of the UK either, they're just dependent territories or dominions etc. I'm not even sure that somewhere like the Channel Islands is strictly part of the UK either.



Incidentally, the Queen is not Queen of England and Scotland seperately anymore, she just has the title of Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which means, I believe, that she holds two crowns, one for GB and one for NI (this is excluding Australia etc for these purposes).

James I and VI has two numbers because when he was on the throne England and Scotland were two seperate countries, though ruled by the same king. The Act of Union in 1707 combined the countries and the crowns, so all subsequent royals became rulers of Britain as a whole. The royals kept using the English numbering system but that was probably because they just forgot about Scotland.

Well, they're all wrong. Try and find a single authoritative reference. Are you some kind of republican or something?
I did a quick search, because I used to follow Nadkor's usage (though on no particular authority). The closest I could find was the CIA factbook, which referred to the Act of Union with Scotland creating Great Britain (my emphasis), which could imply the pre-existence of a lesser Britain.

The standard measurement unit classification is 'England & Wales', which I guess trades brevity for a reduction in ambiguity. So I vote 'Meh' on this issue.

Well, they're all wrong. Try and find a single authoritative reference. Are you some kind of republican or something?
some kind of republican? nope

Britain is England and Wales, but the UK is often referred to as Britian.

Same with Great Britain, the UK is often referred to as Great Britain.

Im pretty certain that until Scotland joined the country was just called Britain, then when Scotland joined it was called Great Britain, then Ireland joined and it because Great Britiain and Ireland (then The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and then when the south left it became The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Now I know why I, most Britiah people, and all foreigners are confused by this.

I did a quick search, because I used to follow Nadkor's usage (though on no particular authority). The closest I could find was the CIA factbook, which referred to the Act of Union with Scotland creating Great Britain (my emphasis), which could imply the pre-existence of a lesser Britain.

The standard measurement unit classification is 'England & Wales', which I guess trades brevity for a reduction in ambiguity. So I vote 'Meh' on this issue.

No, Lesser Britain (also called Less Britain) is an old name for Brittany in France -- because it was settled by ethnic Britons who moved there when the Saxons began to settle the southern part of the island of Britain. No doubt the Britons said the equivalent of "there goes the neighbourhood" in Old Welsh (the language of the Britons). I honestly don't see where all the confusion comes from. :)

"England and Wales" is only used as a single unit because Scotland has its own legal system. Therefore, things tend to apply to Scotland, or to England and Wales, or to the whole of Britain (i.e. Scotland, England, and Wales). N Ireland is a special case, to say the least, in so many ways.

No, Lesser Britain (also called Less Britain) is an old name for Brittany in France -- because it was settled by ethnic Britons who moved there when the Saxons began to settle the southern part of the island of Britain. No doubt the Britons said the equivalent of "there goes the neighbourhood" in Old Welsh (the language of the Britons). I honestly don't see where all the confusion comes from. :)
Fantastic! Now, do we have a candidate for Little Britain or Britain-on-Sea?

"England and Wales" is only used as a single unit because Scotland has its own legal system. Therefore, things tend to apply to Scotland, or to England and Wales, or to the whole of Britain (i.e. Scotland, England, and Wales). N Ireland is a special case, to say the least, in so many ways.
England & Wales is also used as a single unit because statisticians like me can't be bothered to collect Welsh sub-samples. N Ireland is so wierd it generally has to have it's own sub-sample, because otherwise it would warp the British results.

some kind of republican? nope

Britain is England and Wales, but the UK is often referred to as Britian.

Same with Great Britain, the UK is often referred to as Great Britain.

Im pretty certain that until Scotland joined the country was just called Britain, then when Scotland joined it was called Great Britain, then Ireland joined and it because Great Britiain and Ireland (then The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and then when the south left it became The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Whatever things were called in history, when theings were different, there is no statutory or traditional entity called "Britain" which is made up of England and Wales. There just isn't.

When one refers to England and wales together, one says "England and Wales". If you have a diary, look in it. The bank holidays will say "Scotland" or "NI" or "England & Wales"

some kind of republican? nope

Britain is England and Wales, but the UK is often referred to as Britian.

Same with Great Britain, the UK is often referred to as Great Britain.

Im pretty certain that until Scotland joined the country was just called Britain, then when Scotland joined it was called Great Britain, then Ireland joined and it because Great Britiain and Ireland (then The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and then when the south left it became The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Nope. Flat-out wrong. England, Scotland and Wales all occupy a big island called Britain. England partially conquered Ireland in the 12th century, and conquered Wales in the 13th century. England still called itself England, and still refered to Wales and Ireland as exterior territories -- e.g. "the Prince of Wales". Scotland remained Scotland. They had to figure out new names following the Union of the Crowns (e.g. "his Brittanic Majesty") and the Union of the Parliaments. There were even attempts to eradicate the old national names in the 19th century. it was briefly fashionable for Scots to refer to themselves as "North Britons" and Scotland as "North Britain" -- but although this spawned a rash of Victorian train-station hotels called "The North British" (e.g. the NB in Edinburgh, next to Waverley station) it never really caught on. The English continued to refer to themselves as "English", and, annoyingly, to this day tend to use the term when they really mean "Britain".*

But, erroneous usages aside, "Britain" means England, Wales and Scotland. "The British Isles" is a loose term and is sometimes used to mean Britain and the Channel Islands and Ireland (although I've never met an Irishman who will admit to this definition).

* Except, oddly, when referring to the actions of their knuckle-dragging football fans. Then, they are very definitely "British", and a disgrace to "Britain". Most peculiar.

Nope. Flat-out wrong. England, Scotand and Wales all occupy a big island called Britain. England partially conquered Ireland in the 12th century,and conquered Wales in the 13th century. England still called itself England, and still refered to Wales and Ireland as exterior territories -- e.g. "the Prince of Wales". Scotland remained Scotland. They had to figure out new names following the Union of the Crowns (i.e. "his Brittanic Majesty") and the Union of the Parliaments. There were even attempts to eradicate the old national names in the 19th century. it was briefly fashionable for Scots to refer to themselves as "North Britons" and Scotland as "North Britain" -- but although this spawned a rash of Victorian train-station hotels called "The North British" (e.g. the NB in Edinburgh, next to Waverley station) it never really caught on. The English continued to refer to themselves as "English", and, annoyingly, to this day tend to use the term when they really mean "Britain".

But, erroneous usages aside, "Britain" means England, Wales and Scotland. "The British Isles" is a loose term and is sometimes used to mean Britain and the Channel Islands and Ireland (although I've never met an Irishman who will admit to this definition).
well, that would be right

if you completely ignore the fact that the island is called Great Britain

i have never, until today, met anyone who doesnt agree with my definition - so ill be sticking to it

And I am still confused, and I want to stay that way. OK.

well, that would be right

if you completely ignore the fact that the island is called Great Britain

i have never, until today, met anyone who doesnt agree with my definition - so ill be sticking to it

Yes, the big island that holds England, Wales and Scotland is called "Great Britain" (as opposed to "Less Britain", or Brittany). The name "Great Britain" is frequently shortened to "Britain". Scotland, Wales and England are all subunits of Britain, Great or otherwise. I have never, until today, encountered anyone who thought that "Britain" actually meant "England and Wales". I can't imagine how anyone could reach such an odd conclusion.

well, like i say, ive never encountered anyone who thinks differently

probably just a case of two different places having different names for the same place

Yes, the big island that holds England, Wales and Scotland is called "Great Britain" (as opposed to "Less Britain", or Brittany). The name "Great Britain" is frequently shortened to "Britain". Scotland, Wales and England are all subunits of Britain, Great or otherwise. I have never, until today, encountered anyone who thought that "Britain" actually meant "England and Wales". I can't imagine how anyone could reach such an odd conclusion.

And it isn't just Nadkor, it's everyone Nadkor knows. And here's me thinking that the non-republican population of NI was ultra-patriotic.

And it isn't just Nadkor, it's everyone Nadkor knows. And here's me thinking that the non-republican population of NI was ultra-patriotic.
i dont see how that someone calles various parts of the UK affects "patriotism" in any way...

well, like i say, ive never encountered anyone who thinks differently

probably just a case of two different places having different names for the same place

Yes, in Great Britain, we call it "Great Britain, made of England, Scotland and Wales", and in Northern Ireland, you call it "Great Britain, made of Britain and Scotland".

i dont see how that someone calles various parts of the UK affects "patriotism" in any way...

i have no idea what your politics are, and i don't want to offend. I was making a joke. The joke was that people who are so dam keen on the union (and i don't know if you are, i'm j/k) should know what it is called.

Yes, in Great Britain, we call it "Great Britain, made of England, Scotland and Wales", and in Northern Ireland, you call it "Great Britain, made of Britain and Scotland".
well, there we go

some kind of republican? nope

Britain is England and Wales, but the UK is often referred to as Britian.

Same with Great Britain, the UK is often referred to as Great Britain.

Im pretty certain that until Scotland joined the country was just called Britain, then when Scotland joined it was called Great Britain, then Ireland joined and it because Great Britiain and Ireland (then The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and then when the south left it became The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Britain is the Island which consist of England, Scotland, and Wales.

It was just England which joined with Scotland to form Britain because at the time Wales was considered a entity of England.

I have no idea where you got the idea that Britain was just England and Wales.

The United Kingdom is a country that consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In fact, the official name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
Great Britain is the name of the island Northwest of France and east of Ireland that consists of three somewhat autonomous regions: England, Wales and Scotland.
Therefore, England is part of Great Britain, which is part of the United Kingdom. The U.K. includes England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not countries but the United Kingdom is. The remaining portion of the island of Ireland (that which is not the UK’s Northern Ireland) is an independent country called the Republic of Ireland (Eire).
The British Isles consist of the two large islands known as Great Britain and Ireland along with the many small islands nearby. The countries of the United Kingdom and Ireland occupy the British Isles, which are separated by St. George's Channel.

and rest....

Britain is the Island which consist of England, Scotland, and Wales.

no its not, thats Great Britain

thats the name of the island

The countries of the United Kingdom and Ireland occupy the British Isles, which are separated by St. George's Channel
the what now?

no its not, thats Great Britain

thats the name of the island


the what now?

the Irish Sea

no its not, thats Great Britain

thats the name of the island

Britain and Great Britain are exactly the same thing.

Go find somewhere where it says Britain is just England and Wales.

Well this has been an interesting thread.

I think that:

UK = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Great Britain = the same, or simply the biggest island in the British Isles eg Scotland, England and Wales
Britain = as above

the terms, in the modern day, seem to be interchangeable. Look at this definition of Britain from dictionary.net

Britain

noun

a monarchy in northwestern Europe occupying most of the British Isles; divided into England and Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland [syn: United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain, Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]

Let's just go with...
The British Empire!
Then we don't have to bother with all this, everything is the 'British Colony of' xyz, or one of the main original countries: England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. (in order of rule by the current monarchial line)