Hacker News Reader

Comment by robin_reala | Hacker News Reader

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

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...

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.

"Britain" or "Kingdom of Britain" is a good idea, I hadn't considered that

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'.

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

I really appreciate these little tangents, got a good couple of “TIL”s from this thread

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

United Kingdom came from the GB+Ireland, not England & Scotland

England + Scotland were the Kingdom of Great Britain

Ah good point, but the scenario in question involved both Ireland and Scotland leaving so "Great Britain" doesn't fit either.

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 :)

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 :)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

> 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".

The monarch would be sovereign, but he/she/they would execute their powers through different elected assemblies in different parts of the Kingdom. The two assemblies would have no influence over each other. Not sure the monarch has really executed its powers over government since ousting Lord Melbourne in the 1830s. So it really is just about tradition and pageantry.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

.k?

or better .kgb ;)

I'd prefer (for two reasons) the Republic of Great Britain — now that would be a cool TLD!

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.)

No doubt you’re aware of San Francisco and Los Angeles, both in the state of California?

Aware of them, yes. Able to tell you they're 'both in the state of California' (perhaps before now if I remember), no.

I'm not even American, and I can give you "Detroit" and "Flint" both in Michigan, off the top of my head.

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.

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.

the kingdom of southern great britain?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com