The british and Irish Isles.

Maskhadov

The british and Irish Isles.

I think we should start a campaign to change the offical title for the isles of the north west coast of mainland Europe to be re named "the British and Irish Isles". Everyone still refers to it as the "British Isles" even though we left the United Kingdom in the early part of the last century. Even on maps today the "British Isles" is still used and it shouldnt be.

The BBC is guilty of using this term as well and it is incorrect. If France were an Island beside Britain then it would be called the French and British Isles or vise versa.

I think the term belongs to the last days of the british empire and things have changed a great deal. I accept that we share many common values and traditions between the two islands but our own identity should be recognised seperately.

The IRFU was successful in renaming the "British Lions" to the "British and Irish Lions". So politicans can follow suit!!

Yae or nae ?

Agent Smith

or just do what i do


Call it the British Isle's and Ireland

The Corinthian

Personally I blame Pliny the elder.

Nuttzz

Maskhadov wrote:

T

The IRFU was successful in renaming the "British Lions" to the "British and Irish Lions". So politicans can follow suit!!

The same IRFU that gave us that Irelands Call tripe....

MicraBoy

It's a geographical entity not a political one. Get over it I say.

Royale with Cheese

Nae, get over it and devote your time to an actual worthwhile cause.

RuggieBear

and then let's change the name of the Irish Sea.

Oh wait it's geographical term that nobody should have issues with...

mike65

The Irish & British Sea sounds er long.

Wiki defintion

Anyone who gets in a huff about geographic terms needs to have more to do.

Its like the Portuguse moaning about the Iberian Peninsula.

Mike.

Flex

Maskhadov wrote:

The british and Irish Isles.

I think we should start a campaign to change the offical title for the isles of the north west coast of mainland Europe to be re named "the British and Irish Isles". Everyone still refers to it as the "British Isles" even though we left the United Kingdom in the early part of the last century. Even on maps today the "British Isles" is still used and it shouldnt be.

The BBC is guilty of using this term as well and it is incorrect. If France were an Island beside Britain then it would be called the French and British Isles or vise versa.

I think the term belongs to the last days of the british empire and things have changed a great deal. I accept that we share many common values and traditions between the two islands but our own identity should be recognised seperately.

The IRFU was successful in renaming the "British Lions" to the "British and Irish Lions". So politicans can follow suit!!

Yae or nae ?

I agree. Why include Ireland in that geographical term? It should be gotten rid of. As for people saying to get over it because its only a geographical term or whatever, i dont agree with that. Im sure people in Poland would object to being geographically classed as part of 'greater germany' or something for example and Portuguese people probably wouldnt like the Iberian peninsula to be called the 'Spanish peninsula'.

grubber

MicraBoy wrote:

It's a geographical entity not a political one. Get over it I say.

Agreed.
But what about the Middle East? Now there is a geographical nonsense.

Maskhadov

Im glad some people agree. Its not like its a particluarly hard and long phrase to say. It rolls off the tounge pretty easily and its based on equality .

Some of my points are hard to say, but here goes...

When we seperated from the UK we went out in decent enough terms (considering) and we didnt go crazy like some colonies and get rid of post boxes, place names, momuments, etc etc.

My only complaint is that the irish government should have got the british to accept the new name "british and Irish isles". Some might think im just being pedantic but there is a big difference.

Essentially we are a seperate country with a seperate identity but share a number of values with our nearest island. Based on equality and not inferiority we can do certain things together. A good example is sport. Whenever there is sucess/glory etc people dont associate those achievements with just one identity of the two islands (i.e british). They can see there is two seperate entities with some common values.

The british (i dont have anything against them btw) cant say that they have all the values that come from the two islands and are "British". They cant group everything together under one framework which fits their world view and say all the good attributes are their's.

At the moment they take the credit for all of the sucess/good light/whatever you want to call it and put it all under one word "british". Both of us are equal partners and we have many non tangable qualities that they dont have.

Maskhadov

MicraBoy wrote:

It's a geographical entity not a political one. Get over it I say.

The thing is that it is used for things that are non geographical. If you are on mainland europe the vast majority of people will bundle ireland in with britain even though we are pretty different to be fair.

Im not hung up on it but I do think its time we got this word changed and our own identity properly established.

The Corinthian

mike65 wrote:

Its like the Portuguse moaning about the Iberian Peninsula.

In fairness no as there is no Iberian with which the Portuguese may be confused with or offended by. A better example might be if Korea was considered part of a Japanese Peninsula.

Technically it should be Britain that changes its name, as it is incorrect. Britain is correctly a geographical term for the entire archipelago, however the largest of theses islands, incorrectly called (Great) Britain, is actually called Albion by the same origins that named the archipelago - the United Kingdom of Albion and Northern Ireland anyone?

Still, I’m not going to lose any sleep either way.

ishmael whale

RuggieBear wrote:

and then let's change the name of the Irish Sea.

Oh wait it's geographical term that nobody should have issues with...

It should be official renamed 'Mara Na Gael' on all maps. Otherwise our very culture will collapse and we will be helpless and impotent as the alien invader makes off with our womenfolk.

Dave!

I agree that it's a geographical term, not a political one, just like the Irish Sea.

therecklessone

Maskhadov wrote:

The british and Irish Isles.

I think we should start a campaign to change the offical title for the isles of the north west coast of mainland Europe to be re named "the British and Irish Isles". Everyone still refers to it as the "British Isles" even though we left the United Kingdom in the early part of the last century. Even on maps today the "British Isles" is still used and it shouldnt be.

They were called the British Isles before the Act of Union, so our leaving the Union should have no bearing on it.

The Corinthian

ishmael whale wrote:

Otherwise our very culture will collapse and we will be helpless and impotent as the alien invader makes off with our womenfolk.

Do we get to keep the eastern European chicks?

J.R.HARTLEY

therecklessone wrote:

They were called the British Isles before the Act of Union, so our leaving the Union should have no bearing on it.

exactly, some people here are ignorant of the facts and are getting all tiochadh ar la about it.
and it's not like poland being called greater germany, poland is known as eastern europe not greater germany, and even the term germany isn't right in geographical terms.

Maskhadov

therecklessone wrote:

They were called the British Isles before the Act of Union, so our leaving the Union should have no bearing on it.

I think your missing my point. The british isles is not a term which is not relevant in todays world. It is something which has been carried on post our independence but it is really something that needs to be ammended.

It has nothing to do with nationalism, or the act of Union. It is simply based on equality and reconition of another nation state as opposed to the single entity that used to be there.

A petition would be a good start to get support. The british and Irish Lions is a fantastic example of what it should be like.

Maskhadov

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

exactly, some people here are ignorant of the facts and are getting all tiochadh ar la about it.
and it's not like poland being called greater germany, poland is known as eastern europe not greater germany, and even the term germany isn't right in geographical terms.

Its nothing to do with nationalism.. its equality. Im not sure on the exact origin of british but its connected to England, Scotland and Wales. Maybe it was all the island but the phrase is used to define a nation state. So what Im saying is that they should add in another word to reflect the fact that there are two nation states there.


Some people might think its pedantic but when you hear the British and Irish lions it far far better than just the british lions and having that feeling that it was just something that you had to go along with but werent really part of.

Flex

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

exactly, some people here are ignorant of the facts and are getting all tiochadh ar la about it.
and it's not like poland being called greater germany, poland is known as eastern europe not greater germany, and even the term germany isn't right in geographical terms.

I was using the term 'greater germany' ,as an example, to offer a hypothetical situation whereby Poland was known as part of 'greater germany' in geographical terms and how that would seem unacceptable to Polish people considering the bad history they have with Germany. Im aware Poland isnt a part of such a geographical area and (AFAIK) no such geographical area exists. Or how Portuguese people wouldnt want to be classed as part of the 'Spanish peninsula' simply because their sovereign and independant nation is near a larger nation known as Spain.

I see nothing wrong whatsoever with not wanting to have our country as a part of the 'British Isles' since we arnt british and our country isnt british either. The term 'British and Irish Isles' is far more suitable and inclusive.And Maskhadov, being a rugby fan, i agree with you about the Lions

LordSutch

Maskhadov wrote:

. My only complaint is that the irish government should have got the british to accept the new name "british and Irish isles". Some might think im just being pedantic but there is a big difference.

Dear oh dear Maskhadov you really do need to have a lie-down and some asprin and (maybe a joint) to chill out ................

The term "British Isles" is the universally recognised term for "Those islands located off the N/W coast of mainland Europe" they include the island of Britain, the island of Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and all smaller surrounding islands!

The term "British Isles" does not imply that you or Bertie might be British (God forbid) but it is indeed the Correct Geographical term as used by the Met office - Weather forcasters, navigators and everybody else for that matter! May I suggest that you get over it.

iguana

The island of Britain was so called by the Romans - Britannia. That term included the island which now makes up England, Wales and Scotland and smaller islands surrounding it. Ireland was not included in this entity, it was named Hibernia by the Romans and was never conquered by them.

The correct geographical term for the islands of Britain, Ireland, the Isles of Man & Wight and the Aran Islands is The British and Hibernian Isles. It was originally shortened to the British Isles by the British government to add a legitimacy to their rule of the entire region. Today it is called The British Isle's out of laziness and/or ignorance.

According to the British citizenship test Britain is the legal term for the island of Britain and Great Britain is the legal term for Britain, Northern Ireland and the Isles of Man and Wight.

A Dub in Glasgo

iguana wrote:

The island of Britain was so called by the Romans - Britannia. That term included the island which now makes up England, Wales and Scotland and smaller islands surrounding it. Ireland was not included in this entity, it was named Hibernia by the Romans and was never conquered by them.

The correct geographical term for the islands of Britain, Ireland, the Isles of Man & Wight and the Aran Islands is The British and Hibernian Isles. It was originally shortened to the British Isles by the British government to add a legitimacy to their rule of the entire region. Today it is called The British Isle's out of laziness and/or ignorance.

.

Exactly what I have been taught in Geography/History except Caledonia for part of Scotland

Imagine pointing out the inaccuracy of the current nomenclature for these islands and being called small minded by some

LordSutch

iguana wrote:

The island of Britain was so called by the Romans - Britannia. That term included the island which now makes up England, Wales and Scotland and smaller islands surrounding it. Ireland was not included in this entity, it was named Hibernia by the Romans and was never conquered by them.

The correct geographical term for the islands of Britain, Ireland, the Isles of Man & Wight and the Aran Islands is The British and Hibernian Isles. It was originally shortened to the British Isles by the British government to add a legitimacy to their rule of the entire region. Today it is called The British Isle's out of laziness and/or ignorance.

According to the British citizenship test Britain is the legal term for the island of Britain and Great Britain is the legal term for Britain, Northern Ireland and the Isles of Man and Wight.

As a Geography teacher I concur with your view young man :-) but . . . .
are you seriously suggesting that the British citizenship test defines the "Britain" as including Northern ireland?
because if thats the case then I am confused!!!
I could sware that Britain was Britain (The Island of) and if you include Northern Ireland - then you have "The UK" in other words, the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland!
Can you clarify please/ Yours - interested.

Victor

The Corinthian wrote:

Do we get to keep the eastern European chicks?

Only the hot ones and only if you share.

Maskhadov

ArthurF wrote:

Dear oh dear Maskhadov you really do need to have a lie-down and some asprin and (maybe a joint) to chill out ................

The term "British Isles" is the universally recognised term for "Those islands located off the N/W coast of mainland Europe" they include the island of Britain, the island of Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and all smaller surrounding islands!

The term "British Isles" does not imply that you or Bertie might be British (God forbid) but it is indeed the Correct Geographical term as used by the Met office - Weather forcasters, navigators and everybody else for that matter! May I suggest that you get over it.

With all due respect ArthurF I dont take drugs and I dont really need to chill out. Im just pointing out that an extra two words should be used when describing these islands.

Just because something is widely used doesnt mean its correct. Everyone was saying the british lions but they all say the british and irish lions now. A change from the top would change all this.


I wont get over it because I think its something that needs to be amended. Its absolutely nothing to do with nationalism, anti-britishness or anything else. Its just a simple concept. EQUALITY.

oscarBravo

iguana wrote:

The correct geographical term for the islands of Britain, Ireland, the Isles of Man & Wight and the Aran Islands is The British and Hibernian Isles.

Got a geographically authoritative source for that? If it were truly the case, I would have expected a google search for "Hibernian-Isles" to quickly confirm it.

iguana wrote:

It was originally shortened to the British Isles by the British government to add a legitimacy to their rule of the entire region.

Got a historically authoritative source for that?

Victor

iguana wrote:

Aran Islands

Eh, aren't you forgetting an awful lot of larger islands, Anglesea, Hebridies, Shetlands, Orkneys ....

CerebralCortex

meh. Who cares?

therecklessone

Maskhadov wrote:

Its nothing to do with nationalism.. its equality. Im not sure on the exact origin of british but its connected to England, Scotland and Wales. Maybe it was all the island but the phrase is used to define a nation state. So what Im saying is that they should add in another word to reflect the fact that there are two nation states there.

If you bothered to read the link that Mike posted you'd know that's not the case.

In terms of geography the term British Isles is understood to refer to the whole archipelago, from Scilly to Shetland, containing more than 6,000 islands and totalling 315,134 km² (121,674 square miles) of land. These islands were originally inhabited by the ancient Britons (hence the name "British Isles").

The historic name British Isles derives from terms used by classical geographers to describe the island group. Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (iv.xvi.102) records of Great Britain that "it was itself named Albion while all the islands about which we shall soon briefly speak were called the Britanniae".

There's loads more for you to peruse, I can't be bothered quoting it all. If you're going to organise a petition, can you arrange another one to rename the Irish Sea? Cos thats a blatantly political name for a body of water...

Gurgle

Also, I find the term 'Aran Islands' to be deeply offensive and misleading.
I want them renamed to be the 'Inis Mór, Inis Meáin and Inis Óirr islands'.

Sparks

ArthurF wrote:

The term "British Isles" is the universally recognised term for "Those islands located off the N/W coast of mainland Europe"

Of course, there is an alternative, worked out for precisely the reasons that people object to the term "British Isles" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islands_of_the_North_Atlantic

maccor

ahh the usual debate with the usual people making the usual 'whats wrong with british' statements.

i agree that the term british shouldnt be used, mainly because most of the islands arent british.

Gurgle

maccor wrote:

ahh the usual debate with the usual people making the usual...

who the hell are you?

& These are the Brittish Isles.

Geographically, we're Brittish.
Nationality, someone Brittish could be English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh. Doesn't mean we're politically connected to the UK.

Canada is also part of America, dont hear them whinging that it should be called the continent of the united states of america and canada and mexico.

oscarBravo

maccor wrote:

i agree that the term british shouldnt be used, mainly because most of the islands arent british.

I take it you'd be in favour of renaming the Irish Sea, then?

Snickers Man

There are plenty of things worth getting into a fight over to assert our own separate identity and outlook, but frankly......this ain't one of them.

Now if somebody were to assert that Ireland, or at least the southern most five sixths were in the 'United Kingdom' I would have an issue with it, but I think British Isles as a geographical term is bearable.

thegent

A lot of people I know take offence to this term and so do I. I also take offense when people say 'just get over it'. If Irish people had just gotten over it in the past we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would still be part of the UK.
It is a geographical term but of course the English came up with it. Geographical terms have been known to change over time depending on who controls a given area of land.
Also, there is an alternative in place which is accepted and which I accept. You may have noticed, if you like wildlife programs, that Sir Richard Attenborough uses the term 'Islands Of the North Atlantic' when referring to the outdated British Isles


Read this(Wikipedia);
"Islands of the North Atlantic" (IONA) was suggested by Sir John Biggs-Davison as a less contentious alternative to the term "British Isles" to refer to Britain and Ireland and the smaller associated islands. It has been used particularly in the context of the Northern Irish "peace process", during the negotiation of the Belfast Agreement, as a neutral description of those islands. However its use has been mainly limited to this context: as of 2004 (January), the term Islands of the North Atlantic was not used in any official internet site of the British or Irish governments, apart from verbatim reports of Irish parliamentary debates discussing whether it might be used.


Its not a bad alternative.

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

A lot of people I know take offence to this term and so do I.

I take offence to people taking offence to trivia like this.

thegent wrote:

It is a geographical term but of course the English came up with it.

...and, of course, you have a source for this assertion. Not that I got an answer from the last poster in this thread whom I asked for a source.

thegent wrote:

Geographical terms have been known to change over time depending on who controls a given area of land.

Such as?

thegent wrote:

Also, there is an alternative in place which is accepted and which I accept. You may have noticed, if you like wildlife programs, that Sir Richard Attenborough uses the term 'Islands Of the North Atlantic' when referring to the outdated British Isles ... Its not a bad alternative.

It's a deeply offensive and exclusionary term. When did Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland stop being islands of the North Atlantic?

therecklessone

thegent wrote:

It is a geographical term but of course the English came up with it.

Source?

Origin of the term British Isles

In classical times, foreign sources used "Brit-" or "Prit-" with various endings and native sources used oceani insulae meaning "islands of the ocean" or insularum meaning "islands". Only in modern times has British Isles entered the English language.


Classical geographers

The inhabitants of the British Isles in classical times were the Celtic Bruthin or Priteni, who invaded Great Britain and Ireland some time before the 5th century BC. The classical writers of geographies named the group of islands after these inhabitants, using a transliteration into their own language such as Latin (e.g. Bretannae) or Greek (e.g. Βρηττανων).

Throughout Book 4 of his Geography, Strabo is consistent in spelling the island Britain (transliterated) as Prettanikee; he uses the terms Prettans or Brettans for the islands as a group. For example, in Geography 2.1.18, "...οι νοτιωτατοι των Βρηττανων βορηιοτηροι τουτον ηισιν". (...the most southern of the Brettans are further north than this)2. He was writing around AD 10, although the earliest surviving copy of his work dates from the 6th century.

Pliny the Elder writing around AD 70 uses a Latin version of the same terminology in section 4.102 of his Naturalis Historia. He writes of Great Britain: Albion ipsi nomen fuit, cum Britanniae vocarentur omnes de quibus mox paulo dicemus. (Albion was its own name, when all [the islands] were called the Britannias; I will speak of them in a moment). In the following section, 4.103, Pliny enumerates the islands he considers to make up the Britannias, listing Great Britain, Ireland, and many smaller islands.

Ptolemy is quite clear that Ireland – he calls it Hibernia – belongs to the group he calls Britannia. He entitles Book II, Chapter 1 of his Geography as Hibernia, Island of Britannia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

(courtesy of mike65)

Richard

Personally I think that say that Ireland isn't part of the British Isles is like saying that Northern Ireland isn't part of Ireland (the island). In terms of geography there isn't a problem.

I remember hearing a few years ago about a councillor in Galway (possibly the mayor) referring to the Shannon as the longest river in the British Isles. No eyebrows were raised for that. And Galway is hardly a hotbed of Unionism.

"The British and Irish Lions" is a bit of a mouthful, but "The British Lions" might imply that all of the players are British. "The British Isles" does not refer to people - and it is a much older construct anyway.

Are people going to complain about "St George's Channel" next?

Flex

I think we should just call our island and the archipeligos surrounding it by its own name. Why even have a combined designation with Britain? Nothing good ever came from the link between our island and Britain, so i dont like my country being part of the 'British Isles'.Im irish, not british.Im not from there.


Why shouldnt we change the name? whats so bad about wanting an inclusive name were our country and nationality are acknowledged alongside britain? Why are people acting like pedants about this? What do you find so wonderful about the term 'British isles' that you feel the need to be so pedantic towards people who actually do care about the name?

Hagar

Classical geographers

The inhabitants of the British Isles in classical times were the Celtic Bruthin or Priteni, who invaded Great Britain and Ireland some time before the 5th century BC. The classical writers of geographies named the group of islands after these inhabitants, using a transliteration into their own language such as Latin (e.g. Bretannae) or Greek (e.g. Βρηττανων).

Throughout Book 4 of his Geography, Strabo is consistent in spelling the island Britain (transliterated) as Prettanikee; he uses the terms Prettans or Brettans for the islands as a group. For example, in Geography 2.1.18, "...οι νοτιωτατοι των Βρηττανων βορηιοτηροι τουτον ηισιν". (...the most southern of the Brettans are further north than this)2. He was writing around AD 10, although the earliest surviving copy of his work dates from the 6th century.

Pliny the Elder writing around AD 70 uses a Latin version of the same terminology in section 4.102 of his Naturalis Historia. He writes of Great Britain: Albion ipsi nomen fuit, cum Britanniae vocarentur omnes de quibus mox paulo dicemus. (Albion was its own name, when all [the islands] were called the Britannias; I will speak of them in a moment). In the following section, 4.103, Pliny enumerates the islands he considers to make up the Britannias, listing Great Britain, Ireland, and many smaller islands.

Ptolemy is quite clear that Ireland – he calls it Hibernia – belongs to the group he calls Britannia. He entitles Book II, Chapter 1 of his Geography as Hibernia, Island of Britannia.

Personally I'd be slow to take geography lessons from people who used to the believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. They got that wrong, who knows what else they got wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

As for quoting wiki... Well in my book consensus of opinion does not necessarily constitute fact.

thegent

I understand that “desert” “Fjord” “River Basin” are geographical terms that do not change but Geographical Regions do change depending on which tribe or people control that area.

...and, of course, you have a source for this assertion.

The assertion was that its basically an English term. This is from answers.com

"The island of Great Britain during pre-Roman, Roman, and early Anglo-Saxon times before the reign of Alfred the Great (871–899). The name is derived from Brittania, which the Romans used for the portion of the island that they occupied." Answers.com

'The portion of the island they occupied' So, at that time Ireland was not under the term British Isles ,in fact the British Isles didn't exist at that time. It was only when the English crown siezed both islands that the term came into effect

And geographical regions do change depending on who controls them

“Nubia was an ancient region of northeastern Africa (southern Egypt and northern Sudan) on the Nile which was at the time considered a geographical region”
“Lusitania — ancient geographical region and Roman province of the Iberian Peninsula; corresponds roughly to modern Portugal and parts of Spain”. Answers.com

Czechoslovakia was until 1993 considered a geographical region. So too was Austria- Hungary and The British Empire.

It's a deeply offensive and exclusionary term. When did Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland stop being islands of the North Atlantic?

Iceland falls under the term Scandinavia
I think Greenland is a term itslef and Newfoundland-N.America

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

Personally I'd be slow to take geography lessons from people who used to the believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. They got that wrong, who knows what else they got wrong?

The issue is the origin of the name, where it came from and who was responsible for naming it. Their failures in astronomy are irrelvant, are you suggesting their inability to decipher the workings of the universe means they were incapable of naming a geographical entity? I suppose you believe the West Indies should be renamed because Columbus was mistaken in thinking he'd reached the Indies instead of the Americas?

Hagar wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

As for quoting wiki... Well in my book consensus of opinion does not necessarily constitute fact.

And the book of boards.ie, either provide alternate sources or accept that "in my book" = your opinion and nothing more.

Hagar

See post 44 courtesy of The Agent.

Wiki can be edited by anybody to say anything.
So it is only opinions, popular opinions maybe, but just opinions nonetheless not facts.

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

See post 44 courtesy of The Agent.

Wiki can be edited by anybody to say anything.
So it is only opinions, popular opinions maybe, but just opinions nonetheless not facts.

http://www.answers.com/british%20isles

Thats the answer.com link to the phrase "British Isles"

I'll leave it to thegent to provide a link that verifies his quote in post #44, but I don't see it in the link I've provided.

I do see it here though...

answers.com entry for Britain


As for the accuracy or lack thereof of wiki, if you have proof to the contrary I'll be glad to listen.

A Dub in Glasgo

This is taken from the link above and it covers exactly why we have 48 posts about the term 'The British Isles'

Problems with modern usage

Today the term British is usually used to describe people of things belonging to either Great Britain or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However the whole island of Ireland, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey are still commonly included in the 'British Isles', despite the fact that the greater part of Ireland has, since 1922, been independent of the UK as the Republic of Ireland, and that the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey are not a part of UK but crown dependencies.

Many Irish people, as well as some Scottish, Welsh and Cornish nationalists, find the term British Isles proprietorial and unacceptable as being inconsistent with the modern meaning of the word British. However, Unionists in Northern Ireland attach great importance to their 'British' identity.

Hostility to the term British Isles has often been caused by its misinterpretation; this was exemplified by an embarrassing and controversial faux pas by the then American First Lady Nancy Reagan during an Irish visit. The confusion caused by the term was also highlighted during a stop-over visit to the Republic of Ireland by then Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, when he indicated that he presumed Ireland's head of state was Queen Elizabeth II, given that she was the British Queen and his officials said that Ireland was a part of the British Isles.

The term British Isles is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in schoolbooks in the Republic of Ireland and is being phased out of textbooks4. Its usage is also decreasing in official British state documents, out of sensitivity to the concerns of some Irish, Scottish and Welsh people and the evolving geo-political relationships.

Maskhadov

Im glad there is backing for this idea and its all for the right reasons. Personally I would like to start a petition and get public backing for this idea. The british isles term is an old one. It is a phrase which was used to represent a state which no longer exists and it belongs to the late 19th century, early 20th century.

I dont mind being lumped (cant think of a good word) along with the other isles as long as it a term which is modern and reflects everyone who is in it.

The isles were called something else before britain and 'britain' is widely used in day to day speech to refer to England, Wales and Scotland. I dont thinks its fair to extend that word to encorporate another country and different words have been used to refer to these isles in line with changing times.

For me I would be quite happy with the term 'the British and Irish isles'. I think its modern and progressive plus it does reflect everyone who is in it.

canker

http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/britishisles/ wrote:

Applying the term British, or any of its variants, to citizens of the republic is both incorrect politically and politically incorrect. Evidence of the offence taken at this usage can sporadically be found in the soc.culture.irish newsgroup.

If people are crazy enough to be offended by it then I guess people shouldnt use it, for niceness sake.

Its a perfectly reasonable term in my opinion.

ronbyrne2005

anyone getting vexed over the historical/geographical term "british isles" is a sad individual and should get a life.i dont see people of british colombia up in arms! its just a historical legacy/quirk of the british empire and has nothing to do with "equality"! (lol) i dont see anyone going to the equality authority over this!