Great Britons

[unmerged(3627)]

All Scots are British. The British Isles includes England, Wales, Scotland, all of Ireland, and the assorted islands scattered about (eg. Man, Jersey, Guernsey) and anybody resident in any of them is legitimately British - even the Manx, who aren't citizens of Great Britain.

Great Britain (Magna Britannia) refers to the whole island of England/Scotland/Wales, whether or not it exists as a single political unit at any given time.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

reply

So Northern France, Gibralter, Malta, Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, India etc... can all be concidered in this "Great Brittons" thing by your catigorization?

I found out that Britain was named after Felix Brutus. Rome was named after Romulus, Tuscany was named after Tirius, Lumbardy was named after Langaberde, etc... Makes sense to me.

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

If John Locke is British (i cant remeber) he and paine get my vote for philosophy

 

[Deaghaidh]

But Paine did most of his best work in america, does that count?

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Re: reply

Originally posted by CoolElelphant
So Northern France, Gibralter, Malta, Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, India etc... can all be concidered in this "Great Brittons" thing by your catigorization?

Not on the British Isles count: that's a purely geographical term which includes the whole island group off the NW coast of France; England/Scotland/Wales, Ireland, Man, Wight, Lindisfarne....

Anyone from the British Isles can legitimately be called British (including those from the Republic of Ireland, although they probably wouldn't appreciate it). Case in point, the British Lions, which includes rugby players from the Republic, and could conceivable include players from the Isle of Man or Jersey, but they don't have international-standard teams.

Great Britain as a political entity is England, Wales and Scotland, and does not include dependencies and colonies; Isle of Man is not part of Great Britain, nor is Eire, nor is Ulster although it is in the UK. Islands such as Wight, Lindisfarne, Sheerness etc. are part of Great Britain since they are part of England.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Re: Re: reply

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=british

Brit·ish (brtsh)

adj.
Of or relating to Great Britain or its people, language, or culture.
Of or relating to the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth of Nations.
Of or relating to the ancient Britons.

n.
(used with a pl. verb) The people of Great Britain.
British English.
The Celtic language of the ancient Britons.

Originally posted by Heyesey
Anyone from the British Isles can legitimately be called British (including those from the Republic of Ireland, although they probably wouldn't appreciate it)

What a heap of crap The term "British" is a national one, and would refer to citizens of Great Britain. Now, as all RofI citizens are extended the curtesy of being automatically granted British citizenship, then those who chose to take it are British. However, living in the British Isles does not make somebody British, or do you imply that all foreign residents are also British?

Case in point, the British Lions, which includes rugby players from the Republic

The Lions predate Irish Independence. It's another anachronism of the intertwined relationship between Britain and Ireland. Why would you use a sports team to prove a case of a geographical label? It's a national/political grouping.


Back to the subject, hands down I would say Shakespeare. Too many other candidates for second place to list, but no one on earth has had the cultural impact, or the literary genius. Just including his part time hobby, writing sonnets, puts him among the great writers.

 

[Richard Hakluyt]

There's always Little Britain of course. For the purposes of the poll I suppose you need to be a Great Great Briton, rather than a Great Little Briton.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Re: Re: Re: reply

Originally posted by sean9898

The term "British" is a national one

No it ain't. So far as nationalism goes, you're either English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish, and, possibly, also a citizen of the United Kingdom. "British" as a national term simply isn't there, idiot American dictionaries notwithstanding.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: reply

Originally posted by Heyesey


No it ain't. So far as nationalism goes, you're either English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish, and, possibly, also a citizen of the United Kingdom. "British" as a national term simply isn't there, idiot American dictionaries notwithstanding.

http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/British

British
/"brt/ adjective of Britain. plural noun (the British) the British people. British Summer Time = SUMMER


Or idiot British dictionaries apparently.

Looking at one of my passports, it makes several references to British citizens, nothing at all about English, Scots or Irish.

 

[unmerged(6116)]

I have one question.
Well, what's the diference from Great Britain and United Kingdom?

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Falcão
I have one question.
Well, what's the diference from Great Britain and United Kingdom?

The official name for the country is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so "Great Britain" refers to England, Scotland and Wales.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Thatcher, Newton, Darwin, Welllington.

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Surprised not too many picked Churchill. Despite his imperialistic tendencies, he did preside over Britain's darkest hour. A less steely-nerved leader might've sought a compromise peace with Hitler in the aftermath of Dunkirk, with quite disastrous consequences.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Chimera
Surprised not too many picked Churchill. Despite his imperialistic tendencies, he did preside over Britain's darkest hour. A less steely-nerved leader might've sought a compromise peace with Hitler in the aftermath of Dunkirk, with quite disastrous consequences.

The problem with Churchill is the pre-1940 and post 1945 character compared to the wartime version. IMHO, if you could just select those wartime years he might qualify as the finest. He was probably one of the few men who could have possibly continued the war past 1940.

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by sean9898


The problem with Churchill is the pre-1940 and post 1945 character compared to the wartime version. IMHO, if you could just select those wartime years he might qualify as the finest. He was probably one of the few men who could have possibly continued the war past 1940.

There were some significant redeeming features pre-1940 and post-45 though. He certainly possessed incredible foresight. During the 1930s, he tried to warn Parliament of the impending German menace but was ignored and branded a warmonger, and again with his Iron Curtain speech.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Falcão
I have one question.
Well, what's the diference from Great Britain and United Kingdom?

Great Britain refers to the island of Great Britain, containing England, Wales, and Scotland.
The United Kingdom refers to the political union between formerly separate countries; originally England and Scotland, then Great Britain and Ireland, now Great Britain and northern Ireland.

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Originally posted by Bylandt
Thatcher, Newton, Darwin, Welllington.

What's the basis for picking Thatch? Even if you agree with her politics, nothing she has done has any global or historical resonance. Only 11 years after her fall from power whe is already an irrelevnce in modern British politics.

 

[unmerged(4386)]

Great Britons of War

Well, if people complain about Churchill on the basis of his non-war record, or include some of his less successful actions, such as Gallipoli 1915, then there is no basis for including Nelson or Wellington either. While Wellington did have a political career, neither Wellington nor Nelson did anything great outside their military actions.

If we consider great impacts on world history, possibly George III, since his reign helped set the future USA on an independent course!

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Re: Great Britons of War

Originally posted by Warpup
If we consider great impacts on world history, possibly George III, since his reign helped set the future USA on an independent course!

It'll be a frigid day in hell before you find any Brits ranking George III as "great".

 

[unmerged(598)]

Re: Great Britons of War

Originally posted by Warpup
Well, if people complain about Churchill on the basis of his non-war record, or include some of his less successful actions, such as Gallipoli 1915, then there is no basis for including Nelson or Wellington either. While Wellington did have a political career, neither Wellington nor Nelson did anything great outside their military actions.

If we consider great impacts on world history, possibly George III, since his reign helped set the future USA on an independent course!

Wellington's career as an senior officer lasted nearly 20 years. His effectiveness on the battlefield resonated around Europe, when he dispelled French invincibility on the field. Before that, he secured British expansion through India, again on the battlefield.

He was a mediocre politician, and an arrogant prick, but the period one would consider him as a candidate was war. Had WW2 lasted a similar period then obviously Churchill would not have is peacetime behaviour scrutinized so much.

Churchill had good strategic ideas, Gallipoli, Norway and Italy were sound strategic concepts, but either he failed to carry them out, or was not given the opportunity to see the ideas through. It's hardly Churchill's fault that Gallipoli was an operational disaster, and the same could be applied to Italy and Norway.

With such a long political career, just looking at WW2 is to take too small a segment, and he must be judged over that period.