Seriously, though, if you get all this wrong, you will usually be forgiven. Some from the 'Celtic fringe' of the UK might have different views on identifying as 'British'. And if you read on, you'll learn that England was possibly formerly a correct synonym for the UK, though this might just be because people never used to care about who lived in the rest.
It's an easy mistake to make. All right, I broadly get all that so far. This is because there is no precise single word to describe "a citizen of the United Kingdom", so "British" is the most convenient shorthand; a more accurate term would be "UK-er" or "Kingdomite", say, but there is no such term in practice.
Can you give me some better historical context, though.
Many historians believe that it was this lasting popular support that ultimately enabled the United States to fight as long as it did. If you're a pop star, don't come on stage in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast and scream "Hello, England.
Even using the terms "British" or say "Scottish" isn't always enough, even when they're both correct. With the Acts of Union it became the official name of the new state created by the union of the Kingdom of England which then included Wales with the Kingdom of Scotlandforming the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Strathclyde, though in south-west Scotland, often gets lumped with these areas. Just watch out for the Scots.
Shortly before his death in May at Ilala in central Africa, the celebrated missionary-explorer David Livingstone had called for a worldwide crusade to defeat the slave trade controlled by Arabs in East Africa, that was laying waste the heart of the continent.
Some of them, we shan't name any names, have a reaction resembling an enraged Dalek: After the American colonies broke away from Britain in the late s, the British realized they had made a mistake. Many English people get annoyed when people from the UK are either "Scottish" and occasionally, if they're lucky, "Welsh" or "Northern Irish" or "British", but rarely "English" Yes, although this is where it maybe gets even more confusing.
Despite these changes, colonial leaders hoped to reconcile with the British Government, and all but the most radical members of Congress were unwilling to declare independence.
They elected their own officers—usually men who did have some military training but who also knew the territory well. In contemporary usage therefore, Great Britain, while synonymous with the island of Britain, and capable of being used to refer politically to EnglandScotland and Wales in combination, is sometimes used as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole.
The colonies that gained independence later were colonies in which a relatively few British ruled over large native populations. Some of them are nationalists and will not tolerate one step out of line, saying it arises from the Union, which is the root of all evil.
So I think we've got that whole "British" thing straight. The United Kingdom as it exists in modern times is a compound of four member countries. While perhaps true, Franklin also hoped to convince the French to supply the colonists with aid.
The Isle of Man has the world's oldest continuous parliament, and is not a member of the European Union, and it has its own version of the pound not interchangeable with the British one The British Government did its best to dismiss the Declaration as a trivial document issued by disgruntled colonists.
What you need to think about with regard to this question is that the kinds of colonies that were given Dominion status during this earlier period were very different than the kinds of colonies that became independent after the World Wars.
In the likes of tennis for Davis Cup etc. And, perhaps most famously, it is popularly thought to have no road speed limits, although it does.
You've got to use the right term in context. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae c. Before it became what the Romans termed "Britannia minor" or "Britannia cismarina" "Britain on this side of the sea" when it was occupied by refugees from Great Britain in the 5th century A.
GILBERT When Britain Really Ruled the Waves 1 And did it very well: Yet Britain set the world ablaze In good King George’s glorious days!
2 chorus. Yes, Britain set, etc. 15 And while the House of Peers withholds Its legislative hand, And noble statesmen do not itch. Britain which is not susceptible of any improve-ment at all, it is the House of Peers!” 2.
At the time of the Battle of Waterloo (), Britain’s king was George III (–). So why did Britain begin to lose colonies (such as Australia, Canada, Newfoundland, and New Zealand) that were granted Dominion status from through to ?' and find homework help for other.
Useful Notes / Britain Versus the UK This may sound strange and contrary, but there is no nation in the world called "Great Britain".
No, really, there isn't. There isn't even one called "Britain" either – though there kind of is. It's complicated.
American and British democracy On the surface both Great Britain and America fulfil all the basic requirements of democracy, they have universal suffrage, and both governments are regularly held accountable to the people.
Why did democracy develop in Britain after ? Introduction Between andthrough the introduction of a series of acts of parliament, Britain became a democratic country. All the features that would be expected in a democracy were put in place.Notes for when did britain really