TiVo Community Forums Archives - United Kingdom = Great Britain?

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

United Kingdom = Great Britain?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 9thTee

Hi All,
Geography question here. Actually a shipping question.

If an address has the country as United Kingdom is that the same as Great Britain?

Thanks,
Mark

Posted by: Automan

Yes,
If an address includes a post code (UK version of a zip code) the goods should get delivered okay.

Automan.

Posted by: 9thTee

Ok, so does United Kingdom also equal England?

Mark

Posted by: cwaring

NO!! The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and (I think) Northern Ireland. Geography was never my stong point, either :)

Posted by: iankb

The 'United Kingdom' is short for 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.

Great Britain is made up from England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland.

This link may be of help.

AFAIK, 'United Kingdom' is used for all postal addresses. Eire (Southern Ireland) is excluded.

Posted by: mrtickle

Indeed. As I understand it -

UK is "Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Great Britain is England+Scotland (they signed an agreement) and Wales (which was invaded 700 years ago by the English).

Wales is a Principality. In fact after Wales was invaded it was declared part of England and legally it falls under the term "England and Wales" which is used in Acts of Parliament. Northern Ireland is a Province. England and Scotland are countries. None of the 4 are independant countries (our passports say "United Kingdom" on them), but they are nations and have National Anthems etc. The fact that the English use our UK National Anthem "God Save the Queen" as their English National Anthem as well, only muddies the waters and there is an ongoing debate about a separate English NA.

For whatever reason, Americans are not taught the differences between the terms. In fact they are often taught falsehoods. A friend of mine once saw what passed for a "map" where the "E" of England was on North Wales!

When Diana died, CNN showed a map of the UK to explain to their viewers where Wales is. It was onscreen for almost a minute!

Posted by: guydewdney

doesn't the falklands, gibralter, oz etc come under the commonwealth?

or are the smaller ones (falk, gib etc) part of the UK?

Posted by: pgogborn

In its origins, it helps in part to think of Great not to be a value judgment, it does not mean "powerful"

Instead it is a geographic expression meaning "larger in size than others of the same kind."

Thus you have Great (or Greater Britain) meaning just the main large contiguous land mass, as distinct from the British Isles as a whole.

The British Isles includes the main island of Great Britain together with its associated islands. The phrase is a geographic rather than a political grouping. It includes, for example, the Isles of Man, which is not part of the United Kingdom.

Although Great Britain is now a political grouping, when the term were first used by the Romans, no such no political control or affiliation existed. Pictland (modern Scotland) in particular, was very much outside the political entity.

Just to confuse things further, since the 19th century, some political writers/theorists have used the term Greater Britain to mean Britain and its colonies.

Falkland Islands and Dependencies (South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands) are Gibraltar are British Dependent Territories (colonies if you like). Governed by the United Kingdom, not part of the United Kingdom, not members of the Commonwealth. Gibraltar as a European Territory are part of the European Union, Falkland Islands are not. Overseas (non-European) Departments (some former colonies) of France are considered an integral part of France and are part of the EU.

The Isle of Man is a Crown Dependency (possession of the crown, not a colony) not part of the European Union but with associate status.

Posted by: guydewdney

i bet that has confused the hell out of the yanks ;) lol

Posted by: iankb

Probably the most inaccurate term is the British Isles, which includes all islands of the archipelago, and therefore includes the whole of Ireland, including Eire.

Posted by: pgogborn

quote:
Originally posted by guydewdney
i bet that has confused the hell out of the yanks ;) lol

Reflecting the view of some of those in the USA, there have been anti-French sentiments expressed in the Happy Hour - General Chit-Chat Forum.

Some of those antagonisms have been extended to the French speaking parts of Canada.

I wonder how many Yanks, and come to that, Brits, know that off the coast of Canada are the Saint Pierre and the Miquelon group of islands (Saint Pierre-et-Miquelon), French Territorial Collectivities, not an integral part of France as is an Overseas Territory, but represented in the French National Assembly and Senate. Not part of the European Union, but the currency is the Euro. In the parochial yardstick used by the CIA World Factbook, 1.5 times the size of Washington, DC.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ok/geos/sb.html

Posted by: sanderton

We live on a group of islands called the British Isles; one of these islands is called Great Britain (ie, the largest of them). Others in the British Isles include Ireland, the Isle of Wight and the Isle of Man.

"Great Britain" is a purely geographic, not political term.

Sending mail to "London, Great Britain" is roughly equivalent to sending post to "New York, North America". :)

Of course if you want to get complicated, at one point the formal title of the country was "Great Britain, Ireland and Berwick on Tweed", since Berwick had a special status of independence from Scotland and England.

Posted by: iankb

Once you get a parcel to the right country, the Post Code will get it to the right destination. The whole of the United Kingdom shares a single Post Code structure, so specifying the country as 'United Kingdom' is all that is required.

A Post Code is unique for a group of Houses or Flats in the same street. So the minimum address is House/Flat Number or Name, Post Code, Country.

Posted by: 9thTee

Great. Thanks for the responses. My big problem is that I cannot specify United Kingdom with a postage program called Dazzle. But it will accept Great Britain so I guess I am good to go...

Mark

Posted by: ozsat

quote:
Originally posted by mrtickle

For whatever reason, Americans are not taught the differences between the terms.

Its the same in the GB and the good old UK - we were never taught it at school.

Posted by: threadkiller

Just a little correction to Mr Tickle, Wales has never been invaded, although the original Celts did run here to get away from the Romans, as they did to Scotland & Cornwall.

The French did try, they landed at Fishguard whilst looking for England, but they also failed.

In recent genetic studies, its been proved that the Celts are actually the true English, whilst the English are genetic mongrels :)

Posted by: murgatroyd

Just wanted to vent here.

I have a customer in Dublin. Often I take things to the Post Office and when the clerks punch up the code on their machine to get the postage, I see that they are looking at 'Great Britain & Northern Ireland'. :rolleyes:

I think the postage is the same either way, but it's still annoying. I can see why they might be puzzled if I were mailing something to a smaller town, but not to know where Dublin is, that's sad.

Jan

Posted by: sanderton

quote:
Originally posted by threadkiller
Just a little correction to Mr Tickle, Wales has never been invaded, although the original Celts did run here to get away from the Romans, as they did to Scotland & Cornwall.

I'm not sure the Celts ran there; there were just some left there, while the Saxons too over everywhere else.

As for Wales not being invaded, I think you'll find Edward I might disagree. All those lovely Welsh castles weren't built to defend against the English, they were built BY the English to subjugate the conquored Welshmen. :)

Posted by: threadkiller

Stuart, I shall severely Chastise my Welsh History Teacher (Thats if he hasn't retired by now) :)

Posted by: Vikash

Hmmph. I'm glad I'm not the only one who resents having to select my "Country" as "United Kingdom (UK)" in online forms! Why can't they put "England" in there for Chrissakes! This just forces me to lump myself in with those blasted Jocks, and is NOT ON! They wouldn't be so bad but for that hideous Tartan and Ally Bloody McCoist. And those leek-eating sheep-sh@gg3rs from the West with their Charlotte Flamin' Church!

Aaaargh! :D

Posted by: topbanana

That's okay Vikash, the rest of us brits understand the English need to froth and rant. After all, you do put up with being English, that can't be an easy burden to bear. Poor chap.

Posted by: iankb

Personally, I would like to say that I'm a resident of Berkshire, and not be grouped in with those inhabitants of Middlesex. Never liked Middlesex since the police used to lay in wait over Hampton Court Bridge to catch people who drove from Surrey to Middlesex to get an extra half-hour's drinking. ;)

Posted by: cwaring

quote:
Originally posted by Vikash
And those leek-eating sheep-sh@gg3rs from the West with their Charlotte Flamin' Church!

Oy! You leave my CC out of this, will ya :)

Posted by: iankb

quote:
Originally posted by cwaring
You leave my CC out of this ...

So you like a bit of rough then Carl. :D

Posted by: pgogborn

quote:
Originally posted by Vikash
Hmmph. I'm glad I'm not the only one who resents having to select my "Country" as "United Kingdom (UK)" in online forms! Why can't they put "England" in there for Chrissakes!

What makes me f-ing cross is when it is a pull-down menu and you have to go past a list of countries in alphabetical order before you get to the UK (although the USA is often given an 'out of order' spot at the top of the list).

Why the interface people on big commercial sites don't spec at least one extra list, in reverse order (z to a), is beyond me.

Better still, use the ip address of the accessing computer to make a guess of the appropriate country to put at the top of the list - after all, some sites use such techniques to serve up targeted advertisements.

Posted by: Ashley

quote:
Originally posted by iankb
Personally, I would like to say that I'm a resident of Berkshire, and not be grouped in with those inhabitants of Middlesex.

There's no such thing as Berkshire (or Middlesex) Look on a new OS map!
:D

Posted by: sanderton

quote:
Originally posted by pgogborn
What makes me f-ing cross is when it is a pull-down menu and you have to go past a list of countries in alphabetical order before you get to the UK (although the USA is often given an 'out of order' spot at the top of the list).

And when you scroll past Uzbekistan and all the othe countries which the e-shop almost certainly wouldn't ever ship to even if thay had computers there, you find it's not there, so you try Great Britain, not there either, and finally find it's in as England.

Posted by: manolan

quote:
Originally posted by pgogborn
What makes me f-ing cross is when it is a pull-down menu and you have to go past a list of countries in alphabetical order before you get to the UK (although the USA is often given an 'out of order' spot at the top of the list).

Why the interface people on big commercial sites don't spec at least one extra list, in reverse order (z to a), is beyond me.
... snip ....

Although, in fairness, some of the better sites offer United Kingdom after United States as an out of order item.

Posted by: Vikash

quote:
Originally posted by cwaring
Oy! You leave my CC out of this, will ya :)

It's "CMC" isn't it? Brave New World 'n' all. I take it you've worked out a way to shut her up for five minutes then! :D

Posted by: cwaring

quote:
Originally posted by Vikash
It's "CMC" isn't it? Brave New World 'n' all.

Don't get the reference. Just "Charlotte Church" afaik!

Posted by: Vikash

quote:
Originally posted by cwaring
Don't get the reference. Just "Charlotte Church" afaik!

Ms Church's first foray into the Club scene, early last year.

"The Opera Song (Brave New World)"
By Jurgen Vries feat. CMC

CMC being Charlotte Marie Church's attempt at a stage-name for her dance diva alter-ego.

I presume your TiVo didn't catch the Charlotte documentary a couple of weeks ago?

Posted by: brenrher

Since my company is owned by a UK firm, this part of my education definitely needed to be completed!

Posted by: Mr. Soze

Can someone explain why England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own soccer (and rugby) teams?
I mean, they don't have their own seats at the UN, etc. so why here?

Posted by: iankb

I think that they have separate teams so that the fans can get drunk and beat each other up. There is more nationalism between countries in the UK than there is between States in the US.

Which brings one to the more obvious question. Why do different States in the US have different laws to each other, especially with regard to the death penalty, when they don't have different representation in the UN?

Posted by: Mr. Soze

Very very short answer. Federal system. Texas isn't a country (don't tell them that though :D), but Wales is. Or is it?

On the US, I did a quick Google and got you this.

http://www.apgovernment.com/apgover...federalism.html

I am sure you have the same issues over there with money flows through government redistribution on a regional basis. Do the English complain about subsidizing Scotland in a nastier way because of "nationalism" than say a New Yorker would about subsidizing say, Mississippi?

Apologies if I seem to be stating the obvious (to an American about the US), or the incredibly ignorant (re the UK).

Still don't understand the sports teams bit though.

Posted by: pgogborn

The quick answer is probably something along the lines of "we invented the game".

There is a separate board supervising the rules of football and competitions football in each of the constituent countries of the UK. Each country has its own leagues and knock out competitions.

Subsequently FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association) was set up to supervise global rules. We probably used the "we invented the game" card , to ensure each of the domestic boards were represented on the international board (having four votes as a nation is better than having one). Because FIFA supervises international matches and competition's such as the World Cup, it has become enshrined that separate teams are fielded for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, rather than one team for the United Kingdom.

Occasionally FIFA considers whether member countries should be members of the United Nations. The move would remove other 'anomalies' such as China and Hong Kong having different representation. So far such moves have not succeeded.

Being first gives the United Kingdom the advantage in other international organizations. THe original topic of this thread was the international postal service. The international body governing such activities is the UPU (Universal Postal Union). One of the rules of the UPU is that postage stamps must bear the name of the country that issues them. There is one exception. As the UK invented the postage stamp, it does not have to (and does not) put the name of the country on its stamps

Posted by: brenrher

quote:
Why do different States in the US have different laws to each other, especially with regard to the death penalty, when they don't have different representation in the UN?

This is a part of US history that is not taught well at all and many US citizens don't know it.

The basis for the formation for the original 13 colonies from a governing perspective was state's rights - each state had sole and complete authority in governing itself. The US Federal government had very limited power over the states individually or as a whole. The Constitution provided for the Federal government to have limited national authority e.g., raising of armies, central banking, regulation of interstate commerce.

This division of responsibility has continued to this day, with state's rights reigning supreme. Hence what appears to be a mishmash of laws. There's 50 governments here. The line of demarcation however, has become rather blurred over time. Some things are anomalies - the death penalty for example. Until recent history I believe, the Federal government did not have a legal provision to try someone for murder. Murder cases and so forth at the Federal level were tried on the basis of civil rights violations. The assumption was that murder occurred in a state and therefore state laws applied all of which had some sort of law specifically addressing murder (or wrongful death, I suppose).

So how have the Feds gotten so involved at a state level? Doling out the money at the national level, with conditions. The interstate commerce regulation clause of the Constitution has been manipulated over time to give them legal authority to get involved in areas that were not envisioned as being their responsibility.

Posted by: iankb

If individual States have the ability to make their own laws, do they still have the right to withdraw from the Union? Although I can't see any State wishing to do that, would the Federation really accept the creation of a Nation State within their borders? Or the creation of a federation of Southern States that wish to separate from the Northern States? How far does this autonomy really go?

Posted by: kitschcamp

There was something in the papers towards the end of last year about some states, including California, talking about breaking away to form a new country called - iirc - Oceana.

Posted by: iankb

So what are the odds that Oceana would have an ex-movie star as its first president?

They could save on costs by getting Industrial Light & Magic to produce their senate building, and Pixar to produce the senators. Tony Blair would then form an alliance using Aardman Animations.

Sorry. Too much Stella last night. :o

Posted by: sanderton

quote:
Originally posted by iankb
If individual States have the ability to make their own laws, do they still have the right to withdraw from the Union?

I believe there as a small dispute on that issue about 150 years ago. I seem to remember the answer was no. :)

Posted by: brenrher

Indeed, Stuart. The likliehood of another civil war is rather remote. I think the theoretical ability to secede exists. There have been on occasion such movements but mostly to make a point.

There's a few forms of government to pick if a state didn't like its state status though I can't imagine that it's politically viable. There's the recognized Indian tribes, who are not subject to state or federal laws. That's an interesting anomaly but all part of redressing the past.

There's an interesting book that lays out the tenets of state's rights along with how the Constitution was put together for those who like history - Miracle at Philadelphia - The Story of the Constitutional Convention (don't recalls the author at the moment). Many of the compromises made to get something agreed upon led to the later problems, and slavery was one of them.