Talk:British Isles

There's already a Talk page for "Britain and Ireland" which covers this issue to some extent, but actually the discussion belongs here because "British Isles" is the term being objected to; "Britain and Ireland" was just suggested as an alternative.

To begin with, the term "British Isles" is the commonly used and accepted term which refers to the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe which includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and the many smaller adjacent islands. As authorities for this one may cite, among many, many others: Merriam-Webster Geographical Dictionary, Houghton-Mifflin Dictionary of Geography, Oxford Dictionary of the World, Goode's World Atlas, National Geographic Atlas of the World, Rand McNalley Atlas of the World, de Blij and Muller's Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts (authoritative college text), etc. etc.

The use of the term is not simply common, it is virtually universal, among geographers, cartographers, historians, news writers, travel writers, and ordinary people. In fact, if there is any alternative equivalent term in use, I have been unable to find it. If there were one, surely it would have appeared in Kearney's "The British Isles: A history of four nations"; I looked there and didn't see one.

Of course it is possible to use an explicit descriptive phrase, such as "Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands", but virtually no one does, for reasons that are obvious. It's just too cumbersome, and quite unnecessary because the convenient term "British Isles" is so well established and widely documented that its meaning is virtually certain to be clear.

If I were Iceland I would be deeply concerned about this IONA business. --MichaelTinkler

Not to mention the Faeroes, Greenland, Newfoundland, Rhode Island, Long Island, etc. -- Derek Ross

I removed the following (twice):

although there are of course cases where this cannot be done while preserving the intended meaning.

It is clearly and unambiguously POV. It implies that there is a right and wrong meaning to the BI, and that there are occasions when it is right to use it. That is completely disputed by many people, not just in Ireland, but also by nationalists in Scotland and Wales. Many see it as a term that is a hangover from past imperial anglo-centric times. Such a POV sentence has no place in the article.

In addition, to suggest that BI has a geographical meaning is factually wrong. In other cases, terms like Iberia, etc can be accepted by the states on Iberia because it does not have any potential political implications. BI does, because it was a term first coined to refer to a set of islands that were not just geographically but politically bound together, hence it is not a geographic term (as whomever keeps adding in the POV stuff seems to think) but a geo-political term. It is seen by some as the equivalent of using the term former Soviet Union to describe those states in the geographic area that covers Russia and states that once were part of the USSR. Using such a term would be seen as provocative and offensive by ex-USSR states who had achieved their independence, just as indeed the term former Yugoslavia is viewed as offensive by some people in that region. British Isles is widely interpreted by some as meaning the islands of Britain. Ireland is not an island of Britain, it is an island off Britain, a different thing entirely. Because internationally it is often treated as meaning some sort of current political relationship between Ireland and GB, the term is not merely not used by Irish people but is seen as arrogant, offensive and presumptive. And it is not a simple geographic term but a geo-political term. FearÉIREANN 19:42 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I doubt BI ... was a term first coined to refer to a set of islands that were ...politically bound together. There are maps on the internet (e.g. 1607) from well before the 1707 English-Scotish Act of Union that use the terms Britannicarun Insularum (Hibernia + Britannia major) or similar. I don't know Latin, but that sounds like BI to me. I don't dispute that BI has gathered some political implications since. Andy G 22:33 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In fact, I think it's the other way round: British was originally a neutral geographical term for all the islands but it has since been used politically to imply the UK. Hence the problems. Andy G 22:42 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That is simplistic. The states of Ireland and England were de-facto brought together when England claimed sovereignty in Ireland with the Treaty of Winsdor and the establishment of the english Lordship of Ireland in the 1170s. In 1541, the english King was proclaimed King of Ireland. Ireland was a nominally separate kingdom but was run by an english Lord Deputy and a parliament from which the native Irish were excluded and which was filled with the descendants of english settlers. Nobody from 1541 if not centuries earlier saw Ireland as anything other than an english colony. From October 1604 James I of England and Ireland and VI of Scotland claimed the title of King of the united kingdom of Great Britain. Its usage on those maps represented the fact that the three nominally independent states were all one political unit. Its usage clearly and unambiguously showed the political relationship, not just the geographic one, that bound the islands. Describing it as ever being a neutral geographical term is patently absurd and displays a serious lack of understanding of the history of the islands. FearÉIREANN 23:04 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In the above "to suggest that BI has a geographical meaning is factually wrong" seems at odds with all the other opinions expressed here. As most everybody writing on this page has said, BI is widely considered a geographical term. Some people may be sensitive to the possibility that BI may be interpreted in another, political, way. They have the right to prefer other terminology, and even to promote its use, as this page now unashamedly does. It is quite another thing to argue that the term "British Isles" was somehow invented by the English as a political slight to the islands' non-English occupants. There are many bad things in anglo-irish history: this term is not one of them.

Ireland was invaded and occupied by Normans in the 12th century, whose leader happened to be King of England (but not Scotland or Wales), although he rarely visited. When Henry II died, England had nothing any more to do with Ireland until its Lord, the Norman prince Jean, inherited the English throne in 1199. By this time, Ireland had been colonised by Normans, most of whom soon (to borrow a phrase) "went native" becoming "more Irish than the Irish". See History of Ireland and map.

The organised domination of Ireland by english rulers really started with Henry VIII, whose policies were of unbridled opposition to anything controlled by the Pope. The Norman-ancestry lords of Ireland at this time mainly opposed Henry and remained Roman Catholic. By Henry's time, mapmakers across Europe were already producing, and in some cases printing, maps entitled "British Isles" and it seems likely that the term originated some time earlier for it to have reached such wide acceptance. We have no empirical evidence that the term was originated or supported for political purposes at this time. When Ortelius etc. were making their maps, Great Britain was two separate kingdoms. Had there been an English political intention, a title such as the English Isles would have been a far more likely choice.

There may have been attempts after 1603 to promote the single identity of the combined kingdom on the big island, but this was long after the term British Isles was in widespread use. User:EdH 20:22 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Again simplistic and inaccurate. I never said that the term British Isles was unvented by the British. And you chronically underestimate the degree of English involvement in Ireland before Henry VIII. You mention Jean as Ireland's lord, inheriting the English throne. The reason he was called Lord of Ireland was that the territory was given to him by Henri II, who saw Ireland as part of his territories, it being given to him because he was up to that point the only one of Henri's sons without territories, hence his nickname. English rule in Ireland was perceived as legitimate on continental Europe and backed by the pope for centuries before Henry VIII. An all-island Irish state governed by a native polity did not exist and the Lordship of Ireland, then Kingdom of Ireland, was an english creation internationally accepted long before the first maps referred to the term British Isles. So to claim that the term was purely geographical is patently simplistic and inaccurate. Had their been some concept of Ireland as an independent island then it is quite probable as elsewhere that a term would have been used that was neutral rather than focused on the identity of the larger island. But because the smaller island was seen internationally as a colony of the larger (indeed the papacy had openly endorsed the right of England to rule over Ireland, though not to call the smaller island a 'kingdom' - which had to wait until Henry VIII broke with the papacy) it was perceived as reasonable to use a term that focused on the identity of the former, a term Great Brittaine being used by royal ordinance to describe the larger island in October 1604. FearÉIREANN 22:37 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

(I have bought a copy of The Isles to educate myself.) I withdraw may original point. But part of my problem stemmed from the fact that the article launches straight into English-Irish-Scottish politics without mentioning the original usage of British: to describe the Brythonic Celts, of most of Great Britain and of Brittany ("Little Britain")(I didn't know that). I'm going to edit this in. The other point that needs clarifying is that British Isles was in use well before there was any central control over the whole of the archipelago (including Scotland), and before it was even claimed. It's pushed beck to "before Henry VIII" above. This was a time when Great Britain was uncontestedly two nations, England and Scotland.

A lot of what's been written leads to the expectation the islands might be called "The English Isles". Re-reading, it looks like "British Isles" was first used to imply two nations: England-including-Ireland and Scotland. Is that right? If so, the article just confuses things by mentioning English rule extended to Scotland in 1603.

I am reminded of the way in which The Netherlands have come two be known as "Holland" to English-speakers. I gather this is because the sea-trading peoples of the provinces of North and South Holland were those most likely to be encountered by Englishmen, and so that name was transferred in popular usage to the country from which they came - without, as far as I know, any political spin-doctoring to encourage it. Does this throw any light on the question? Andy G 12:31 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good buy with Norman Davies' The Isles. One bit of advice, though. I was severely disappointed to notice some rather monumental errors in it. I get the impression that Norman sort of ran out of steam half way through or realised that what is was writing was getting to be too big (been there, done that when writing history!) so the second half seems to cover things in a lot less detail than the first and some almightly blunders crop up, such as suggesting that de Valera won the Irish civil war, which would have come as a suprise to him, given that he had given a 'dump' arms command to his defeated followers and finished the civil war in gaol. There are other blunders too. It is a fascinating and thought-provoking book (I reviewed it for a newspaper) and had to say that it was such a pity that easily correctable mistakes have undermined its credibility. Whether that was fault of Norman or his editors I don't know but it was a great pity.

BTW please don't think I am some Irish republican Brit-hater etc. Far far from it. (On another article I worked on I was called a British Tory by someone!) But because of the complexity of Anglo-Irish relations, Ireland was seen for most of the last millennium as a form of english colony and so all the islands were seen as secondary to the main island, and even on the main island, Scotland though an independent kingdom was seeen as secondary to the main major kingdom on the island, England. The fact that the Scottish kingdom was seen as so unstable, with coups, murdered monarchs, regencies, rebellious nobility, constant English invasions, etc helped project the image that it was a minor kingdom; the fact that its ex-queen, Mary Queen of Scots, could be help a prisoner for many years in England and than be executed showed the real nature of power on the island. That James VI when he inherited the throne went to London and never returned to Edinburgh, indeed that he chose to reign as James I of Great Brittaine from the English not Scottish capital is indicative of the power relationship on the island. So there was no more perceived need to acknowledge Ireland in the terminology used than there was to include the Isle of Man. As Britain was a term applied to the major island, and it was the source of power among all the islands of the archipelago, it was understandable that the whole group was called the British Isles. Put simply, you had a lot of islands, one main one, on which stood a minor kingdom and a major one. Geographic terms are not created in isolation but tend to reflect the generally accepted power basis at the time. (Hence the use of the word 'America' to refer to the US, even though all parts of the American continent should have equal ownership of the term.) FearÉIREANN 14:04 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following inaccurate addition:

Some writers may choose to avoid referring to the island group as a whole in order to avoid giving offense.

No they don't. They simply choose not to use a particular term to describe the island group which is seen by many to have geo-political implications and to imply a political relationship between the countries in the group that actually ceased to exist 81 years ago. An increasing number use a less potentially offensive term. They don't stop referring to the island group altogether. Why has someone a problem with simply accepting that there are potential problems with this term? Instead we are getting amendments that imply the term is OK. If there is a problem, it is with people who may take offence with it. That is blatenty POV. The problem rests with the term itself and what it potentially implies. People genuinely and understandably have a problem with a term that has inaccurate geo-political implications.FearÉIREANN 20:28 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ortelius makes clear his understanding that England, Scotland and Ireland were politically nominally at least separate in 1570 by the full title of his map... which translates as "A description of England, Scotland and Ireland, or the British Isles".

Does this imply separation? Couldn't someone have produced a map with the same title in, say, 1850?

In cases where what is being referred to is the two largest islands, the term "Great Britain and Ireland" can be used. Of course, in those cases, the term "British Isles" would not be appropriate to begin with. There is no other brief term in common use to refer to the island group as a whole; "Great Britain, Ireland, and surrounding islands" gets at the basic meaning, but at the cost of conciseness

Is this not back to front? Surely the main islands are assumed to include their outlying islands unless you make it clear that's not what you intend. Great Britain and Ireland is a common substitute for The British Isles. To refer just to the two large islands you would surely have to say something like "the mainlands of Great Britain and Ireland". How would one describe the Geography of New Zealand?