England or the UK, past usage

[Architect]

Again, you understood that I was referring to western (US, Canada, England, Australia) Allied servicemen without me having to actually say it.



(cough)

[brodski]

(cough)

Historically correct usage.

[Architect]

Historically correct usage.

110% wrong, I'm afraid.

Well, unless we're talking about the war starting before 1707. Hell I know the Americans are always late for these things, but 232 years??!???


(and if you're from Putney you have no excuse)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

England, ENGLAND! (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/footy/)

[brodski]

110% wrong, I'm afraid.

Well, unless we're talking about the war starting before 1707. Hell I know the Americans are always late for these things, but 232 years??!??? Sorry no, until the latter half of the 20th century it was normal, accepted usage to use "england" to describe the entire UK, "British" was used to describe the Empire, it was only with a resurgence of Scottish and Welsh nationalist feeling and activism that the distinction was commonly drawn between the mainland constituent nations.

A contemoranious refernce to English troups in WWII could mean any UK forces but this may be a discussion for annother trhead.


(and if you're from Putney you have no excuse)no I'm not.

[brodski]

I've move these posts here so we can have a good old row about the correct use of the term "English" without Holocaust deniers getting in the way.

[Architect]

Sorry no, until the latter half of the 20th century it was normal, accepted usage to use "england" to describe the entire UK, "British" was used to describe the Empire, it was only with a resurgence of Scottish and Welsh nationalist feeling and activism that the distinction was commonly drawn between the mainland constituent nations.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG

The only nation of the UK who ever thought it acceptable to use the terms England and Britain (or UK) interchangeably were the English. And look where it's got them, as the rest of us look towards giving them independence at last.

But that's a discussion for the politics thread.

[brodski]

And to kick us off, ""England expects that every man will do his duty" ;)

[brodski]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG

The only nation of the UK who ever thought it acceptable to use the terms England and Britain (or UK) interchangeably were the English. And look where it's got them, as the rest of us look towards giving them independence at last.

But that's a discussion for the politics thread.
Please provide evdience for this assertion.

[brodski]

and a refernce, in realtion to the Oxford History of England. 'England' was still an all-embracing word. It mean indiscriminately England and Wales; Great Britain; the United Kingdom; and even the British Empire. (A.J.P. Taylor, Volume XV: English History, 1914-1945, page v)

[chris epic]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=U.K.

[Soapy Sam]

Reading Johnson and Boswell squabbling makes it clear that the situation in the late 18th century was broadly where it is now- the English used "England" to mean "The United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland" and everyone else didn't.

[Big Les]

Even if no Scots at all used "England" in a wider sense, the English practice of doing so spread to Europe, the US and just about everywhere. Which is why it still happens despite British people being at pains to correct the rest of the world.

IOW England as the dominant force in the Empire got its "brand" associated with (and near-interchangeable with) that of "Britain". During and post WW2 British came to mean more as the Empire shrank. And then you have the rise of nationalism.

But I'm not convinced that deliberately perpetuating that historical error is worthwhile, unless quoting a source.

[Last of the Fraggles]

And to kick us off, ""England expects that every man will do his duty" ;)

Yes, England has been historically mistakenly used when the speaker meant to say Britain or the United Kingdom. That doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake then or a mistake now.

The above quote is particularly grating given the disproportionate amount of Irish, Scots and Welsh who seem to have given their life for 'Queen and Country'

Another aspect of this is the title of Queen Elizabeth II - Britain never had a Queen Elizabeth I.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Even if no Scots at all used "England" in a wider sense, the English practice of doing so spread to Europe, the US and just about everywhere. Which is why it still happens despite British people being at pains to correct the rest of the world.

IOW England as the dominant force in the Empire got its "brand" associated with (and near-interchangeable with) that of "Britain". During and post WW2 British came to mean more as the Empire shrank. And then you have the rise of nationalism.

But I'm not convinced that deliberately perpetuating that historical error is worthwhile, unless quoting a source.

'Dominant Force' and yet it was a Scottish king who took over the united crowns.

I don't find the mistake is repeated in Europe so much where the history is much better known. Many of the countries of Europe have fought wars with England. In some cases Scots were their allies in these wars.

It only seems to be in England (where many times they actually only mean England) and in the US (where there seems to be little understanding of the difference) where this mistake is repeated.

[Soapy Sam]

Next week- Are Canadians actually "Americans"?

[Big Les]

'Dominant Force' and yet it was a Scottish king who took over the united crowns.

I'm well aware of that. My point stands. The victors write history - England dominated the Union and the Empire.

I don't find the mistake is repeated in Europe so much where the history is much better known. Many of the countries of Europe have fought wars with England. In some cases Scots were their allies in these wars.

I do. I met up with a German recently who despite being a huge fan of Scotland and its future independence, STILL referred to Britain as "England".

In both world wars, the Germans referred mostly to the "English" soldiers, even when there were Scottish regiments involved.

It only seems to be in England (where many times they actually only mean England) and in the US (where there seems to be little understanding of the difference) where this mistake is repeated.

Again, not my experience. I'm not saying it's right - far from it. Just that the English had their way historically, and that's reflected today (especially in America as you say).

[ddt]

I don't find the mistake is repeated in Europe so much where the history is much better known. Many of the countries of Europe have fought wars with England. In some cases Scots were their allies in these wars.
I'd have to disagree with this. In the Netherlands, too, the name England is commonly used when Great Britain is meant - even though the same kind of mistake is wrought upon the Dutch by referring to the whole country as Holland. You're right in that most of our wars were with England, not with Britain.

[Soapy Sam]

In many ways- and probably largely due to the elephant in the south- Scotland has always been a more active member of Europe than England.

[gumboot]

Yes, England has been historically mistakenly used when the speaker meant to say Britain or the United Kingdom. That doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake then or a mistake now.

The above quote is particularly grating given the disproportionate amount of Irish, Scots and Welsh who seem to have given their life for 'Queen and Country'

Another aspect of this is the title of Queen Elizabeth II - Britain never had a Queen Elizabeth I.



During the reign of the current monarch of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II, there was some controversy in Scotland over whether it was appropriate to refer to her as "the Second of that name" since no Elizabeth had previously reigned in Scotland. Most supporters of Scottish independence, and many other pro-union Scots, believed the title to be an example of establishment bias favouring England. But affirming the Queen's intention to continue as "the Second" throughout the UK, a policy was announced that all future UK monarchs would be numbered uniformly according either to an English or Scottish reckoning, whichever was higher. (The policy announcement, coming from the UK government, naturally could not apply to the various other Commonwealth Realms which share a monarch with the UK; but since the current queen is known as "Elizabeth II" in all those realms as well, the convention appears to be accepted universally.)

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regnal_numerals_of_future_British_monarchs )


Interestingly enough if you were to retroactively apply this policy to the previous monarchs of the United Kingdom none of their regnal numerals would change, making the issue a bit of a non-starter.

[Furi]

Well it seems a bit strange to confuse the rest of the world

althhough technically incorrect I thought the commeon referance was to British Soldiers or British/Commonwealth/Allied Forces, English Irish Scottish Welsh Regiments,

Besides just the fact that most of the world get confused by British Isles UK GB England refs it would be terrible to forget these very proud and historic country specific regiments either in relation to WWII and previous conflicts,

24th Regiment of foot (Rorke's Drift etc), were referred to as British Soldiers for example, The Sikhs and Natives Forces in India were referred to as the British Indian Army (British Army in India was for UK originating troops stationed in India).

However for mirkins can always refer to Wales as England West (espescially south wales) and Scotland as England North or Land of the Haggis munchers or Sweaty Socks, or WTF did he just say again land, and Irland is of course where every mirkin can give the exact percentage of their heritage from (of course I am 2.73% Irish from my mothers side you know, it feels like I am coming home)

Oh and for you mirkins there is also the festering arse blister that is London, don't ever confuse London and Londoners with the rest of the UK and its people (I spent 10 years down there, obviously punishment for some unspoken crime)

[zooterkin]

I do. I met up with a German recently who despite being a huge fan of Scotland and its future independence, STILL referred to Britain as "England".

In both world wars, the Germans referred mostly to the "English" soldiers, even when there were Scottish regiments involved.


Japan, too. The Japanese word for Britain is 'Igirisu', clearly derived from 'English'

[Damien Evans]

You are all English Pig-Dogs. I fart in your general direction.

[Nogbad]

Interestingly enough if you were to retroactively apply this policy to the previous monarchs of the United Kingdom none of their regnal numerals would change, making the issue a bit of a non-starter.

James the VIth and James the VIIth?

[H3LL]

If the English had been as diligent in removing the Scots as the Scots were in removing the Picts it wouldn't be an issue.

:crc:

:scarper:






:whistling

[Last of the Fraggles]

Japan, too. The Japanese word for Britain is 'Igirisu', clearly derived from 'English'

And a repeated mistake makes it right?

I lived in Japan for a while and I have a nagging doubt that your word isn't actually the right one but I can't remember the word I need so I will concede your point.

Across the sea in Japan 'Yeonguk' means both Britain and England generally and yet there are separate words for Scotland and England which are used, for example, for soccer teams.

I'm not sure which interactions either of these countries had with the UK before 1707 so their interpretation may simply be a function of the English/British representatives that they first encountered.

[drkitten]

And a repeated mistake makes it right?

Yes. You don't get a vote on what the Japanese word for "British" is, any more than they get a vote on what the English word for "Ni-hon-jin" is.



I'm not sure which interactions either of these countries had with the UK before 1707 so their interpretation may simply be a function of the English/British representatives that they first encountered.

Of course. Similarly, the word for "foreigner" or "European" (if I remember correctly) is "ho-ran-jin", literally "Holland person," since the only Europeans that they knew about were the Dutch traders at Nagasaki. I don't speak a word of Dutch, and only about 1/3 of the Netherlands is technically "Holland" anyway (how come we can call the entire Netherlands "Holland" but can't call the UK "England," huh?) ---- but I'm nevertheless a Hollander when I set foot in Nagasaki.

[ddt]

Of course. Similarly, the word for "foreigner" or "European" (if I remember correctly) is "ho-ran-jin", literally "Holland person," since the only Europeans that they knew about were the Dutch traders at Nagasaki.
To be precise: at the island of Decima near Nagasaki. And the rest of the country was closed to Europeans.
I don't speak a word of Dutch, and only about 1/3 of the Netherlands is technically "Holland" anyway (how come we can call the entire Netherlands "Holland" but can't call the UK "England," huh?)
No you can't! :) Personally, I don't mind, but some other Dutchmen might. The confusion of names dates back from the start, when the Netherlands was still the "Republic of the Seven United Provinces", with Holland being one of the provinces - the economically most important, bearing like 75% of the taxes and a similar share in the fleet (like the one that visited Chatham :)).

The people most likely to object to the Netherlands being called Holland are from the southern two counties, which were then ruled as conquered territory (they were not part of the "Seven"). Incidentally, they use Holland to mean everything to the north :D.

[drkitten]

The people most likely to object to the Netherlands being called Holland are from the southern two counties, which were then ruled as conquered territory (they were not part of the "Seven"). Incidentally, they use Holland to mean everything to the north :D.

My lord, the defense rests.

[Big Les]

Japan, too. The Japanese word for Britain is 'Igirisu', clearly derived from 'English'

Add France to the list. I recently saw a mid-19th century print of a Highland soldier in the British Army entitled "English Soldiers" (in French, obviously).

Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean we should repeat the error unless quoting directly from a source, BUT it did and does happen.

[malbui]

Add France to the list. I recently saw a mid-19th century print of a Highland soldier in the British Army entitled "English Soldiers" (in French, obviously).


Yeah, I've long since given up trying to explain the distinction over here because in popular culture everything the other side of the Channel is l'Angleterre*. A few days ago my daughter wore her Ireland rugby shirt (a present from a doting great-grandmother) to school and was greeted at the classroom door by her teacher saying "ah, you're showing your Englishness today". I merely rolled my eyes.



* Actually, as far as we're concerned, everything north of, say, Dijon, is l'Angleterre, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Scazon]

Gott strafe England! So the Kaiser had nothing against Wales, Scotland or Ireland. Think of the opportunity lost to finish the war just by sending in the Enniskillens, the Black Watch and the Welsh Guards while the unspeakable Hun thought they were neutrals!

There was a fashion in the 19th century for referring to Scotland as North Britain and Ireland as West Britain- mostly among integrationists in those two parts of the Ompah. I really don't think anyone considered Wales, as it had been politically integrated for so long. I think the fact that England not only supplied the bulk of the population, but monopolised the political power, led to the identification of England with the whole state. In the Imperial period (up to the late 1950s), objection would probably have been considered unpatriotic anyway.

[Soapy Sam]

The Peoples' Republic of Motherwell wishes to declare independence from Greater Pictland.

[mummymonkey]

The Peoples' Republic of Motherwell wishes to declare independence from Greater Pictland.
Granted. Now sort out your pitch.