6 ms·

I mean, lets get a couple more general elections done and see if we keep NI and Scotland...

by Already__Taken 4y ago

robin_reala 4y ago
“The United Kingdom of England and Wales” still theoretically works.
- steanne 4y ago
  the kingdom of southern great britain?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- smcl 4y ago
  I think they'd continue to refer to it as such but to me it feels a little odd. The "United Kingdom" was originally a union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England, the latter having already conquered and absorbed Wales. Losing one former-kingdom of that union and maintaining you're the "United Kingdom" feels a bit dishonest, a little bit "Democratic People's Republic ..." :) "The Kingdom of England and Wales" makes more sense but "KEW" and "EW" sound odd as acronyms, and will just lead to most of the world referring to the place as "England" (as many in the USA currently do tbh). That is, if they decide to keep the monarchy...
  - Wildgoose 4y ago
    I think it would become simply "Britain", seeing as "Britannia" originally referred to the Roman colonies of England and Wales. "Great Britain" is the whole island (including Scotland). "United Kingdom" would require continued Union with either Scotland or Northern Ireland.
    - smcl 4y ago
      "Britain" or "Kingdom of Britain" is a good idea, I hadn't considered that
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - Normille 4y ago
      TRIVIA CORNER: In Irish Gaelic the island of Great Britain is Breatain Mhór [Big Britain] and Breatain Bheag [Little Britain] is the name for Wales. Obviously coming from the historical fact [much trumpeted by the Welsh] that they were the original Brits, driven into the mountainous west by the Saxon invaders. England in Irish is Sasana [obviously referring to Saxons] thus making an Englishman a Sasanach NOTE: These terms are similar in Scottish Gallic too. Hence the widely known Scots usage of Sasanach as a derogatory term for an English person which, in reality, means calling them a 'Saxon'.
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        If we're digging up weird etymological trivia, I will contribute the fact that the old Celtic word Īweriū (from which we get the name Éire) was interpreted by the ancient Greeks as Iouerníā, leading to Tacitus calling the island Hibernia (influenced by the Latin word hībernus, thinking that it meant "land of winter"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia
        smcl 4y ago
        I really appreciate these little tangents, got a good couple of “TIL”s from this thread
    - synotna 4y ago
      The predecessor to the UK before Ireland was the Kingdom of Great Britain, so would be correct to go back to afterwards Of course to save money (and face) it probably wouldn't
  - synotna 4y ago
    United Kingdom came from the GB+Ireland, not England & Scotland England + Scotland were the Kingdom of Great Britain
    - smcl 4y ago
      Ah good point, but the scenario in question involved both Ireland and Scotland leaving so "Great Britain" doesn't fit either.
      - synotna 4y ago
        If both leave, then the predecessor to the Kingdom of Great Britain was the Kingdom of England Wales was already part of England, as principality / having been conquered Though "United Kingdom of England" could argue that they kept the Irish crown :)
        smcl 4y ago
        I feel like "Kingdom of England" would be off the table - you probably wouldn't want to antagonise the Welsh immediately after they just watched NI and Scotland split off :)
- OJFord 4y ago
  That's kind of like 'The United States of <two cities in the same state>'. (Aside: TIL I don't think there's a US state for which I can name two cities. Edit: ah, no - Austin & Houston TX.)
  - drfuchs 4y ago
    No doubt you’re aware of San Francisco and Los Angeles, both in the state of California?
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Aware of them, yes. Able to tell you they're 'both in the state of California' (perhaps before now if I remember), no.
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    I'm not even American, and I can give you "Detroit" and "Flint" both in Michigan, off the top of my head.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Well done? Obviously (?) I'm not saying nobody can, just thought I realised for a minute that I couldn't, then remembered the pair edited in. Fwiw I'm also not American, and have never heard of Flint. Also couldn't have told you Detroit was in Michigan anyway.
      - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
        Sorry, I assumed you were American. In that case, I don't think it's all that rare not being able to name two cities in a state — IME, a lot of capital cities are well known, but not necessarily second cities, etc. I think the capitals are often presented alongside their state as pairs, so phrases like "Detroit, Michigan" just stick in the mind. I also probably know Detroit, Michigan from either Eminem or Motown. Flint, Michigan is definitely more obscure — I know that one from Michael Moore. I do have a bit of a love for Geography, place names, and US states in particular.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I'm not sure it does? IIRC, the Kingdom of Scotland merged with the Kingdom of England as (theoretical) equal partners, but Wales was just straight up conquered, and to the extent it's got any connection with royalty (the Senedd Cymru is democratic so I don't count it for this title), I think it's just leading it's name to royal titles, and hasn't even still officially been a principality since 1542? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Wales
  - nirimda 4y ago
    I don't think this historical matter is going to be relevant. The leftover bits will want to claim continuity with the preceding state, and they will want to use the UK name. But even if there's no consideration giving to branding, thanks to the Welsh Senedd there's now a distinct category of Welsh law, different from English law. So while the union of England and Wales might have been brought about by the extinguishment of the Welsh state, such as it may be, the union is being continued through the regeneration of some of the aspects of statehood.
- Milner08 4y ago
  Does it? As a welsh person it hurts me to say that Wales was never a kingdom in the United Kingdom as its was under English rule for a long time before that came about. You could I guess still use the name, but its weird. I would love to see England get a devolved government, with all governments getting equal power and the UK government overseeing defense, etc. Sort of like a Federal government.
  - walthamstow 4y ago
    If we do federalism we would need to break England down quite a bit. Yours, a Londoner. (We have less political power than Scotland, which is half our population. Wales is even smaller)
    - b800h 4y ago
      We have a wonderful opportunity to reestablish some of the old kingdoms in England as states in a federal United Kingdom. Duchies of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, Lancaster, London, Yorkshire and so on (as well as Scotland and Wales) with both elected parliaments and local constitutional nobles would be a brilliant way of making things more equal, driving local development, revitalising the monarchy and maintaining tradition.
- vonzepp 4y ago
  One option in the future is the that United Kingdom refers to the monarchy not the government. If Scotland became Independent, they could retain the monarchy. So you could argue the kingdoms are united, but different governments "serve" the monarch in different countries. This would require England and Wales to come up with a new name for their new country unless Wales also asked for independence.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    But that's already the case with many former colonies in the Commonwealth, but they're not considered part of the UK. E.g. the monarchy "rules" over Canada, but we're not in the UK.
    - vonzepp 4y ago
      True,but they were colonies that were under the British Empire, rather than being made part of the UK, that slowly gained dominion status granted self-governance that eventually came full governance. The United Kingdom was formed around 1707, between England and Scotland. Ireland was joined in 1801. Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1921 coming a dominion until becoming a republic and cutting all ties to the monarchy. My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country, not as an entity. Which would be either largely symbolic, or something closer to the EU in design
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        > My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country But surely a kingdom has to have a defined territory over which the monarch is sovereign? Of course there is precedent for having a government in exile (which claims a territory it has no control over), and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which doesn't claim any territory at all), but I think if you want the "UK" to refer to an institution, then it should stand for "the United Kingship".
        vonzepp 4y ago
- deergomoo 4y ago
  It's The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so presumably if Ireland were to ever unify we'd just be...the Kingdom of Great Britain?
  - gampleman 4y ago
    .k? or better .kgb ;)
    - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
      I'd prefer (for two reasons) the Republic of Great Britain — now that would be a cool TLD!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- frivoal 4y ago
  That country could have an interestingly named neighbor: if Ireland and Scotland band together, they could be the United Republic of Ireland and Northern Great Britain.
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

I mean, lets get a couple more general elections done and see if we keep NI and Scotland...

robin_reala 4y ago

“The United Kingdom of England and Wales” still theoretically works.

steanne 4y ago
the kingdom of southern great britain?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smcl 4y ago
I think they'd continue to refer to it as such but to me it feels a little odd. The "United Kingdom" was originally a union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England, the latter having already conquered and absorbed Wales. Losing one former-kingdom of that union and maintaining you're the "United Kingdom" feels a bit dishonest, a little bit "Democratic People's Republic ..." :) "The Kingdom of England and Wales" makes more sense but "KEW" and "EW" sound odd as acronyms, and will just lead to most of the world referring to the place as "England" (as many in the USA currently do tbh). That is, if they decide to keep the monarchy...
- Wildgoose 4y ago
  I think it would become simply "Britain", seeing as "Britannia" originally referred to the Roman colonies of England and Wales. "Great Britain" is the whole island (including Scotland). "United Kingdom" would require continued Union with either Scotland or Northern Ireland.
  - smcl 4y ago
    "Britain" or "Kingdom of Britain" is a good idea, I hadn't considered that
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Normille 4y ago
    TRIVIA CORNER: In Irish Gaelic the island of Great Britain is Breatain Mhór [Big Britain] and Breatain Bheag [Little Britain] is the name for Wales. Obviously coming from the historical fact [much trumpeted by the Welsh] that they were the original Brits, driven into the mountainous west by the Saxon invaders. England in Irish is Sasana [obviously referring to Saxons] thus making an Englishman a Sasanach NOTE: These terms are similar in Scottish Gallic too. Hence the widely known Scots usage of Sasanach as a derogatory term for an English person which, in reality, means calling them a 'Saxon'.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      If we're digging up weird etymological trivia, I will contribute the fact that the old Celtic word Īweriū (from which we get the name Éire) was interpreted by the ancient Greeks as Iouerníā, leading to Tacitus calling the island Hibernia (influenced by the Latin word hībernus, thinking that it meant "land of winter"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia
      - smcl 4y ago
        I really appreciate these little tangents, got a good couple of “TIL”s from this thread
  - synotna 4y ago
    The predecessor to the UK before Ireland was the Kingdom of Great Britain, so would be correct to go back to afterwards Of course to save money (and face) it probably wouldn't
- synotna 4y ago
  United Kingdom came from the GB+Ireland, not England & Scotland England + Scotland were the Kingdom of Great Britain
  - smcl 4y ago
    Ah good point, but the scenario in question involved both Ireland and Scotland leaving so "Great Britain" doesn't fit either.
    - synotna 4y ago
      If both leave, then the predecessor to the Kingdom of Great Britain was the Kingdom of England Wales was already part of England, as principality / having been conquered Though "United Kingdom of England" could argue that they kept the Irish crown :)
      - smcl 4y ago
        I feel like "Kingdom of England" would be off the table - you probably wouldn't want to antagonise the Welsh immediately after they just watched NI and Scotland split off :)
OJFord 4y ago
That's kind of like 'The United States of <two cities in the same state>'. (Aside: TIL I don't think there's a US state for which I can name two cities. Edit: ah, no - Austin & Houston TX.)
- drfuchs 4y ago
  No doubt you’re aware of San Francisco and Los Angeles, both in the state of California?
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Aware of them, yes. Able to tell you they're 'both in the state of California' (perhaps before now if I remember), no.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  I'm not even American, and I can give you "Detroit" and "Flint" both in Michigan, off the top of my head.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Well done? Obviously (?) I'm not saying nobody can, just thought I realised for a minute that I couldn't, then remembered the pair edited in. Fwiw I'm also not American, and have never heard of Flint. Also couldn't have told you Detroit was in Michigan anyway.
    - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
      Sorry, I assumed you were American. In that case, I don't think it's all that rare not being able to name two cities in a state — IME, a lot of capital cities are well known, but not necessarily second cities, etc. I think the capitals are often presented alongside their state as pairs, so phrases like "Detroit, Michigan" just stick in the mind. I also probably know Detroit, Michigan from either Eminem or Motown. Flint, Michigan is definitely more obscure — I know that one from Michael Moore. I do have a bit of a love for Geography, place names, and US states in particular.
ben_w 4y ago
I'm not sure it does? IIRC, the Kingdom of Scotland merged with the Kingdom of England as (theoretical) equal partners, but Wales was just straight up conquered, and to the extent it's got any connection with royalty (the Senedd Cymru is democratic so I don't count it for this title), I think it's just leading it's name to royal titles, and hasn't even still officially been a principality since 1542? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Wales
- nirimda 4y ago
  I don't think this historical matter is going to be relevant. The leftover bits will want to claim continuity with the preceding state, and they will want to use the UK name. But even if there's no consideration giving to branding, thanks to the Welsh Senedd there's now a distinct category of Welsh law, different from English law. So while the union of England and Wales might have been brought about by the extinguishment of the Welsh state, such as it may be, the union is being continued through the regeneration of some of the aspects of statehood.
Milner08 4y ago
Does it? As a welsh person it hurts me to say that Wales was never a kingdom in the United Kingdom as its was under English rule for a long time before that came about. You could I guess still use the name, but its weird. I would love to see England get a devolved government, with all governments getting equal power and the UK government overseeing defense, etc. Sort of like a Federal government.
- walthamstow 4y ago
  If we do federalism we would need to break England down quite a bit. Yours, a Londoner. (We have less political power than Scotland, which is half our population. Wales is even smaller)
  - b800h 4y ago
    We have a wonderful opportunity to reestablish some of the old kingdoms in England as states in a federal United Kingdom. Duchies of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, Lancaster, London, Yorkshire and so on (as well as Scotland and Wales) with both elected parliaments and local constitutional nobles would be a brilliant way of making things more equal, driving local development, revitalising the monarchy and maintaining tradition.
vonzepp 4y ago
One option in the future is the that United Kingdom refers to the monarchy not the government. If Scotland became Independent, they could retain the monarchy. So you could argue the kingdoms are united, but different governments "serve" the monarch in different countries. This would require England and Wales to come up with a new name for their new country unless Wales also asked for independence.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  But that's already the case with many former colonies in the Commonwealth, but they're not considered part of the UK. E.g. the monarchy "rules" over Canada, but we're not in the UK.
  - vonzepp 4y ago
    True,but they were colonies that were under the British Empire, rather than being made part of the UK, that slowly gained dominion status granted self-governance that eventually came full governance. The United Kingdom was formed around 1707, between England and Scotland. Ireland was joined in 1801. Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1921 coming a dominion until becoming a republic and cutting all ties to the monarchy. My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country, not as an entity. Which would be either largely symbolic, or something closer to the EU in design
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      > My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country But surely a kingdom has to have a defined territory over which the monarch is sovereign? Of course there is precedent for having a government in exile (which claims a territory it has no control over), and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which doesn't claim any territory at all), but I think if you want the "UK" to refer to an institution, then it should stand for "the United Kingship".
      - vonzepp 4y ago
deergomoo 4y ago
It's The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so presumably if Ireland were to ever unify we'd just be...the Kingdom of Great Britain?
- gampleman 4y ago
  .k? or better .kgb ;)
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    I'd prefer (for two reasons) the Republic of Great Britain — now that would be a cool TLD!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
frivoal 4y ago
That country could have an interestingly named neighbor: if Ireland and Scotland band together, they could be the United Republic of Ireland and Northern Great Britain.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago