When is it British and when is it English ?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

At the time when Australia was found and seized was that captain an Englishman or Briton (latter in reference to modern concept not Roman times)? Also is your allegiance still only to England (if it everwas) or instead to the United Kingdom as whole?

I believe we first established colonies in Aus in 1788, and Captain Cook made contact with the Eastern coastline during his first voyage between 1768 and 1771, and the Union between England/Wales and Scotland was signed in 1707/1708 which is when the Kingdom of Great Britain came into being. So Cook would have been British by birth, having been born in 1728.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Catfish

So.. Australia belongs to the UK? Officially?
I thought it was how Skybird put it .. -> completely confused

But you do not have a say in the EU vote
You can partake in the Eurovision song contest though

Well...yes and no, the Prime Minister of Australia technically defers to the Governor-General who defers to the Queen but it very rarely ever goes that way. The last time I think the Governor-General had to get involved in things was during a Constitutional Crisis in 1975.
But yes, she does still have a fair bit of power but it's only really left to her in the knowledge that she will only ever use it in the direst of circumstances. Which is one of the reasons why the British political system is very jittery about the idea of Charles getting the throne because unlike Elizabeth he prefers to take a more direct role in political affairs and has his own pro-environmental agenda, which while I think is noble, will result in a lot of bad blood between parliament and crown if he tries to exercise too much of the power he has.

[MGR1]

The best way to describe the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is thus: Two Kingdoms, a Principality and a Province. That's England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

All the same, but all different.

Mike.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well...yes and no, the Prime Minister of Australia technically defers to the Governor-General who defers to the Queen but it very rarely ever goes that way. The last time I think the Governor-General had to get involved in things was during a Constitutional Crisis in 1975.
But yes, she does still have a fair bit of power but it's only really left to her in the knowledge that she will only ever use it in the direst of circumstances. Which is one of the reasons why the British political system is very jittery about the idea of Charles getting the throne because unlike Elizabeth he prefers to take a more direct role in political affairs and has his own pro-environmental agenda, which while I think is noble, will result in a lot of bad blood between parliament and crown if he tries to exercise too much of the power he has.

In truth I'd rather Charles gave way to William when the next heir accedes to the throne but I can't honestly seeing that happen, he's waited so long bless his little jug ears.

[MGR1]

He may have a while to wait if the Queen lives as long as the Queen Mum. Perhaps the Queen's deliberately trying to outlive Charles so the throne goes directly to William!

Mike.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

In truth I'd rather Charles gave way to William when the next heir accedes to the throne but I can't honestly seeing that happen, he's waited so long bless his little jug ears.

Is there precedent for such arrangement? Wouldn't Charles abstinence change the line of succession with throne passing to Duke of York or Princess Royal instead of Duke of Cambridge?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Is there precedent for such arrangement? Wouldn't Charles abstinence change the line of succession with throne passing to Duke of York or Princess Royal instead of Duke of Cambridge?

Couldn't say for sure without delving into it but I wouldn't have thought so.

[mapuc]

So Britain is England, Wales and Scotland.

If I meet a person in London, I guess he or she would say

I'm British person

What about a person from Wales or Scotland ? Would they say

I'm British or would they say I'm Walish(correct spelling ?) person or I'm Scottish person ?

Markus

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by mapuc

So Britain is England, Wales and Scotland.

If I meet a person in London, I guess he or she would say

I'm British person

What about a person from Wales or Scotland ? Would they say

I'm British or would they say I'm Walish(correct spelling ?) person or I'm Scottish person ?

Markus

Knowing a Welshman, I can say with absolute certainty that as far as he's concerned, he's British and Welsh alike, just never EVER call him English

Same for the Scottish people I met. Scottish and British alike, although the ones supporting the idea of separation would be more likely to say they're Scottish and would frown upon being called British but they wouldn't totally disagree. The ones supporting the union would be more likely to say British but wouldn't mind if you said Scottish.

In my experience, of course.