• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The UK...For Our US Members

Audie

Veteran Member
Great Britain is the big island that contains England, Wales and Scotland

Ireland is the smaller island to the West of Great Britain where The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are

The United Kingdom spans both these islands, but not all of Ireland due to The Republic being a separate and independent country
What is so great about it?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It's the largest of "The British Isles"

Hence it is called "Great Britain"

It's "Great" as in big, not "Great" as in fantastic or brilliant
Ah so desu ka.

We have very mixed feelings about
G.G., here.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Don't forget about the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey which are separate from the United Kingdom but for whom the United Kingdom is responsible.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
What is the difference between the UK, Great Britain, and England?

I don't recall learning this school, but I slept through much of the first 10 grades and may have been "distracted" in the last two years.

In my experience, some of us on this side of the pond conflate these, but there is a difference.

The UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Each is its own country, but part of the Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland is not a part of the UK.

Great Britain consists of all of these except Northern Ireland.

England is a country that is a part of Great Britain and the UK.

If you guys already knew this, I'll gladly accept that I'm the one that remained in ignorance as a result of my own doing and move on. But if there are others out there like me, it's a PSA.
Time to repost CGP Grey's explanation. Besides from the outdated information that the UK is a member of the EU the rest is still accurate:
 

rocala

Well-Known Member
yes, and I was aware of England's conquests
Oh dear Salix, all these lessons appear to have been in vain. Overwhelmingly these were British not English conquests. An awful lot of Irish, Scots and Welsh took part both militarily and as settlers. It is very rude to continually ignore them.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Having been the guest of a Welsh patriot during a visit and been treated to seeing a castle where the "valiant Welsh" sadly lost to the English invaders, the lesson that England is not the UK was emphasized. "Great Britain" did not come up but if it had, I would have been treated to a discourse on how the Welsh were NOT "British".


Actually the Welsh are more British than any other occupants of this island; after the Romans left, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc pushed the Britons out of what eventually became England, into the inaccessible west of the island.
 

rocala

Well-Known Member
pushed the Britons out of what eventually became England, into the inaccessible west of the island.
While I agree with the main thrust of your post, I think that more recent research both in archaeology and DNA makes the "pushed" theory likely to be a lot less severe than was originally thought. Assimilation seems to be gaining considerable acceptance.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
While I agree with the main thrust of your post, I think that more recent research both in archaeology and DNA makes the "pushed" theory likely to be a lot less severe than was originally thought. Assimilation seems to be gaining considerable acceptance.


Aren’t we all at least 40% Danish anyway? Lots of Scandinavian surnames in Yorkshire.
 

rocala

Well-Known Member
Aren’t we all at least 40% Danish anyway?
A lot of the Danish DNA comes from the Norman conquest, as many were descended from them. The Vikings got their genes into the mix in numerous ways.
Take the case of the wonderfully named Sygtrig Silkbeard, King of Dublin. His grandfather was a Viking leader with an Anglo-Saxon wife. Sygtrig had an Irish mother and an Irish wife. His granddaughter Ragnailt married a Welshman, and many of their descendents inter-married with Anglo-Norman families. It has all been an incredible melting pot, which, I feel, makes our internal squabbles look rather petty.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
A lot of the Danish DNA comes from the Norman conquest, as many were descended from them. The Vikings got their genes into the mix in numerous ways.
Take the case of the wonderfully named Sygtrig Silkbeard, King of Dublin. His grandfather was a Viking leader with an Anglo-Saxon wife. Sygtrig had an Irish mother and an Irish wife. His granddaughter Ragnailt married a Welshman, and many of their descendents inter-married with Anglo-Norman families. It has all been an incredible melting pot, which, I feel, makes our internal squabbles look rather petty.


That is indeed a wonderful name
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Yes, and I was aware of England's conquests, either by my formal education or my own study, but it's becoming increasingly clear that students in the US were, for whatever reason, kept in ignorance of the present day environment.

It disappoints me that I even had to create this thread.
I thought that for Americans this part of the world just consisted of London?
 
Top