If you said you collected "The British Isles" you'd cover all islands, including Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. However, the Irish Republic would object to this term (they're not British).
Yes, the important issue is whether collectors are using political or geographical designations. British and British Isles are geographical designations in the same sense that Europe is a geographical designation. However, no geographical language can be truly politically neutral. This is clear in debates about UK membership of the EU, where people typically talk about 'leaving Europe'. As you say, many Irish would reject the geographical designation 'British Isles'. However, 'loyalist' politicians and supporters in Northern Ireland (for which they prefer the word 'Ulster') embrace the idea of being British!
We can, of course, call ourselves collectors of anything we like. Problems arise when catalogues such as Gibbons are divided partly geographically and partly politically - having 'Commonwealth' catalogues and 'GB Specialised' catalogues. And if a collector describes him or herself as a Commonwealth collector, the issue of which countries to include immediately arises.
I once signed up to a mailing list and the drop-down list of country designations offered 'Great Britain' but not 'United Kingdom'. I pointed out that this meant that someone from Northern Ireland with strong political views would be unable to join the mailing list. The (US) owner of the list didn't understand the point at all - like many from the US, he probably used the word 'England' to refer to the whole of the UK!
John, I doubt whether there are many GB collectors who are unaware of the distinction between 'Great Britain' and 'the United Kingdom'. If it is the former rather than the latter which holds sway in this hobby, then we have the ancient catalogues and pre-printed albums to thank, rather than the carelessness of collectors.
'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' can be authoritatively shortened to 'Great Britain', as I understand it, in which case politically correct nomenclature chimes with longstanding philatelic practice.
Simultaneous post, there!
It is, as you say, historical usage and generally causes no confusion. The shortening to GB in a few other contexts (such as car identification plates) is also historical and equally unconfusing. The pedantic issues arise when questions such as whether Ireland should be included in a Commonwealth collection are discussed - see the varying views in that thread.
There is also an issue, I suppose, about the extent to which 'Commonwealth' catalogues should change their contents whenever countries leave and join the Commonwealth.
The whole question of 'Britain' and 'British' has become highly charged in recent years, making historical usages more likely to be questioned. Living in Cornwall, I may be particularly sensitive to this, as many down here don't regard themselves as being part of 'England', even though Cornwall is legally part of 'England and Wales'.
What will they call it when Scotland separates?
"What will they call it when Scotland separates?"
Apologies to non UK members.....
Headline: The Great British Break Off.
New name: Little Britain.
The Scott Catalogue refers to "Great Britain".
As a Canadian, I was taught "Great Britain". I don't see anything wrong with that.
David
Even Stanley Gibbons titles their catalogs with "Great Britain". Likewise Michel.
The discussion can be interesting and informative, but when the major catalog publishers continue to use "Great Britain", don't expect the philatelic world to make any changes.
It's not just limited to the use of "Great Britain", but other stamp issuing "countries" as well. And not just limited to "country" names, but stamp terminology too -- let's not get into "mint" and "mint hinged", "mint sheet" or "mint pane"...
Bottom line -- collectors will use the name/term that the philatelic world (or their little corner of the philatelic world) uses. Whether it is factually correct is not always a factor.
A lot of interesting and valid points in these postings. I was not seriously trying to suggest a change of terminology, but merely highlighting that collectors rely on labels and definitions that are purely conventional but make sense within our little world - just as various other bits of terminology have been established.
As kjh points out, however, there is not complete agreement about how to use our common terminology. This means that there can often be misunderstandings or the possibility of taking advantage of this lack of consensus - e.g. In selling items is a stamp accurately described as 'mint', for example?.
Back to 'country' terminology, however, there is fairly good agreement here. We just need to keep abreast of changes in official namings that may affect stamps and hence our collections. Think, for example, of the various name changes to former French, Belgian, and British colonies in Africa: it can sometimes be difficult to decide what name to put at the head of a collection.
Whatever the political rights and wrongs of Scottish devolution or independence, the official name changes are likely to be straightforward. An independent Scotland would almost certainly call itself 'Scotland', and the UK would probably just drop the 'Great' from its full title. Stamp collectors would probably still refer to 'GB' and would still include the stamps of Scotland in their collection.
But this raises another speculation: would an independent Scotland issue its own stamps? It would be very expensive to set up a new nationwide door-to-door postal delivery service, so most likely, an independent Scotland would contract with Royal Mail (now privatised) to undertake deliveries and postal services. Separate Scottish stamps would then depend on what contractual conditions were negotiated between the Scottish government and Royal Mail.
I doubt if a postal service could be 'renationalised' by a Scottish government. As I understand it, the privatisation legislation concerning Royal Mail contained various obligations on the part of Royal Mail to maintain a certain level of service across the UK. If Scotland ceased to be part of the UK, there would no longer be any obligation for Royal Mail to collect and deliver in Scotland. Royal Mail would, from a Scottish point of view, be a foreign company and so no part of it could be 'renationalised'. An independent Scotland would either have to have its postal service run by a foreign company (with which it would have to negotiate a new level of service) or set up its own postal service from scratch.
As an Englishman I am hesitant to get into a debate on Scottish Independence, however I would make the following comments
1. The SNP appears to be ruled by it's heart and not it's head ( and its mainly cultural argument).
2. You can have cultural independence ( and as a Northern Englishman ruled by them pesky Southerners I would have to be all for that) without political independence.
3. The Scottish legal system ensures that there is in fact a fair amount of independence built in.
4. (LOL) If a referendum had been held in England most of the English population would have voted for Scottish Independence ! Despite it's protestations to the contrary the SNP s position ( and appeal ?) is based on it being recognisably anti -English.
To get back on topic the SNP has obviously not done any study on the cost of universal postal delivery in Scotland. The proportionate deficit in delivering to the Highlands and Islands in the context of an-all Scotland postal service is much more than in an all-UK service. It is a fact that the Universal Postal Delivery is a net loss to Royal Mail and would be a much bigger loss to a prospective Scottish General Post Office.
Changing the subject slightly to the case of Ireland,from 1801 until partition it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so how you describe the UK and Ireland is entirely within the context of period, up until 1922 part of the UK, up until 1948 part of the Commonwealth, and after then part of the Europe. Just to add confusion many Irish people still consider Northern Ireland to be part of Ireland ( and many English people wish it was).
Malcolm
Malcolm
To further add to the confusion: in Rugby Union, the national Irish team represents the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
I feel sorry for the Welsh. No-one seems to talk about them as possibly being independent. In the Canadian patriotic song (the original version) "The Maple Leaf Forever" there is the line "The Thistle, Shamrock, Rose entwined / The Maple Leaf forever!" No Wales?
Then again: "The Thistle, Shamrock, Rose, and Leek" just wouldn't fit and just sounds silly (sillier?).
Wales is a different case constitutionally. "England and Wales" has been a legal entity since at least the 12th century. There was no seperate legal, civil government or educational system in Wales as there has always been in Scotland and Northern Ireland- which is why Wales has an Assembly ( i.e. an additional tier of government) rather than a Parliament which is a seperate,albeit in some matters subsidiary, executive function.
Technically Welsh independence, while possible, would be a much more complex operation,as an entire legal,parliamentary, and administrative system would have to be set up from scratch, whereas in Scotland and Northern Ireland the "nuts and bolts" are present in the amount of distinctive institutions already there.
and, as my friend reminded me, when I mentioned this discussion, there are only 46 states in the US, the remainder being commonwealths, so, technically, we ought to be referred to as the US&CoA, unless you wanted to add territories and districts.
OK, back to the Celts, Anglos, Saxons, Orangemen, Picts, Normans, Beakers, Bretons, Roman hangerson, Norsemen, and descendants of Czechs and Poles flying in your RAF and the immense expatriated former colonials.
I just bought a new album to put my triangle stamps in and the Heading is called Great Britain with a line under it saying Official name United Kingdom. Probably because as David said this is how Scott Catalog has it.
"The clue is in the title. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
You have the words, united, kingdom, of, great, britain, northern and ireland. The most important word is OF!! The two districts OF Great Britain and Northern Ireland are united to form a kingdom.
Therefore the "Country" is Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of course this is shortened to Great Britain. (the Northern Irish being ignored by the rest of the "kingdom", as per usual).
You also have the "Kingdom of Saudia Arabia", nobody calls it "Kingdom" as a country."
The stamps of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, and later of Great Britain and Northern Ireland never had the country name on the stamps. And saying "Great Britain" is a lot shorter than the entire title.
So when I address a letter to my cousin in Southampton, and put "Southampton, England" on it, is that not correct? Similarly, when I write to my cousin in Belfast, I put "Belfast, Northern Ireland" only. In neither case do I put United Kingdom. Am I wrong? They seem to get through Okay.
"So when I address a letter to my cousin in Southampton, and put "Southampton, England" on it, is that not correct? Similarly, when I write to my cousin in Belfast, I put "Belfast, Northern Ireland" only. In neither case do I put United Kingdom. Am I wrong? They seem to get through Okay."
We are talking convention here rather than legaleese. As long as the person sorting the mail understands what he/she sees, and providing they are not riding some political hobby-horse, there is no problem.
We over here cannot expect citizens from across the pond to understand our constitutional foibles ( particularly as we don't actually have any written constitution at all !!), the same as they cannot expect us to understand theirs. It gives us an interesting talking point - we can delight in our differences as much as in our sameness. It is a fact that the U.S. systems of Government and Jurisprudence are directly descended from ours, although it is inevitable that after 240 odd years there has been some divergence, in the same way as our system in 2016, alledgedly directly descended from Magna Carta in 1215, would be completely unrecognisable to the authors of the latter.
Malcolm
A recent discussion here asked if Ireland should be included under the British Commonwealth. This raises a much bigger issue that rarely seems to concern collectors.
Many people collect 'GB' stamps, regarding these as the stamps of 'Great Britain'. What is rarely mentioned is that Great Britain is not, and never has, been a stamp-issuing country. The official name of the country is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. From the annexation of Ireland until the independence of the Republic', the country was called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. 'Great Briitain' is the term used to describe the whole British mainland after the union of Scotland with England and Wales.
This all has a number of interesting consequences.
Ireland has never been a part of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland today is not part of Great Britain. Hence, GB collectors should not, strictly, collect Irish stamps of any period and should not collect Northern Irish regional issues. Of course, if they described themselves properly as UK collectors, they could collect these!
It is also worth noting that Jersey and Guernsey are also not part of Great Britain. However, they are also not part of the United Kingdom! They are separate dependencies of the Crown and are independent of the UK parliament. Hence they are not a part of the European Union - which is why they can provide tax advantages to companies and wealthy individuals. For stamp collectors, it is worth noting that a collector of 'GB' (or UK) stamps should not, strictly, collect either Channel Islands 'regional' issues or their independent postal issues!
Shouldn't we refer, then, to the UK and UK collectors, and not to 'GB' and GB collectors? Perhaps not. Usage is probably far too entrenched to change, and since it does give a distinctive character to our hobby its quite nice to keep the old but inaccurate usage.
re: Why call it GB?
If you said you collected "The British Isles" you'd cover all islands, including Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. However, the Irish Republic would object to this term (they're not British).
re: Why call it GB?
Yes, the important issue is whether collectors are using political or geographical designations. British and British Isles are geographical designations in the same sense that Europe is a geographical designation. However, no geographical language can be truly politically neutral. This is clear in debates about UK membership of the EU, where people typically talk about 'leaving Europe'. As you say, many Irish would reject the geographical designation 'British Isles'. However, 'loyalist' politicians and supporters in Northern Ireland (for which they prefer the word 'Ulster') embrace the idea of being British!
We can, of course, call ourselves collectors of anything we like. Problems arise when catalogues such as Gibbons are divided partly geographically and partly politically - having 'Commonwealth' catalogues and 'GB Specialised' catalogues. And if a collector describes him or herself as a Commonwealth collector, the issue of which countries to include immediately arises.
I once signed up to a mailing list and the drop-down list of country designations offered 'Great Britain' but not 'United Kingdom'. I pointed out that this meant that someone from Northern Ireland with strong political views would be unable to join the mailing list. The (US) owner of the list didn't understand the point at all - like many from the US, he probably used the word 'England' to refer to the whole of the UK!
re: Why call it GB?
John, I doubt whether there are many GB collectors who are unaware of the distinction between 'Great Britain' and 'the United Kingdom'. If it is the former rather than the latter which holds sway in this hobby, then we have the ancient catalogues and pre-printed albums to thank, rather than the carelessness of collectors.
'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' can be authoritatively shortened to 'Great Britain', as I understand it, in which case politically correct nomenclature chimes with longstanding philatelic practice.
Simultaneous post, there!
re: Why call it GB?
It is, as you say, historical usage and generally causes no confusion. The shortening to GB in a few other contexts (such as car identification plates) is also historical and equally unconfusing. The pedantic issues arise when questions such as whether Ireland should be included in a Commonwealth collection are discussed - see the varying views in that thread.
There is also an issue, I suppose, about the extent to which 'Commonwealth' catalogues should change their contents whenever countries leave and join the Commonwealth.
The whole question of 'Britain' and 'British' has become highly charged in recent years, making historical usages more likely to be questioned. Living in Cornwall, I may be particularly sensitive to this, as many down here don't regard themselves as being part of 'England', even though Cornwall is legally part of 'England and Wales'.
re: Why call it GB?
What will they call it when Scotland separates?
re: Why call it GB?
"What will they call it when Scotland separates?"
re: Why call it GB?
Apologies to non UK members.....
Headline: The Great British Break Off.
New name: Little Britain.
re: Why call it GB?
The Scott Catalogue refers to "Great Britain".
As a Canadian, I was taught "Great Britain". I don't see anything wrong with that.
David
re: Why call it GB?
Even Stanley Gibbons titles their catalogs with "Great Britain". Likewise Michel.
The discussion can be interesting and informative, but when the major catalog publishers continue to use "Great Britain", don't expect the philatelic world to make any changes.
It's not just limited to the use of "Great Britain", but other stamp issuing "countries" as well. And not just limited to "country" names, but stamp terminology too -- let's not get into "mint" and "mint hinged", "mint sheet" or "mint pane"...
Bottom line -- collectors will use the name/term that the philatelic world (or their little corner of the philatelic world) uses. Whether it is factually correct is not always a factor.
re: Why call it GB?
A lot of interesting and valid points in these postings. I was not seriously trying to suggest a change of terminology, but merely highlighting that collectors rely on labels and definitions that are purely conventional but make sense within our little world - just as various other bits of terminology have been established.
As kjh points out, however, there is not complete agreement about how to use our common terminology. This means that there can often be misunderstandings or the possibility of taking advantage of this lack of consensus - e.g. In selling items is a stamp accurately described as 'mint', for example?.
Back to 'country' terminology, however, there is fairly good agreement here. We just need to keep abreast of changes in official namings that may affect stamps and hence our collections. Think, for example, of the various name changes to former French, Belgian, and British colonies in Africa: it can sometimes be difficult to decide what name to put at the head of a collection.
Whatever the political rights and wrongs of Scottish devolution or independence, the official name changes are likely to be straightforward. An independent Scotland would almost certainly call itself 'Scotland', and the UK would probably just drop the 'Great' from its full title. Stamp collectors would probably still refer to 'GB' and would still include the stamps of Scotland in their collection.
But this raises another speculation: would an independent Scotland issue its own stamps? It would be very expensive to set up a new nationwide door-to-door postal delivery service, so most likely, an independent Scotland would contract with Royal Mail (now privatised) to undertake deliveries and postal services. Separate Scottish stamps would then depend on what contractual conditions were negotiated between the Scottish government and Royal Mail.
re: Why call it GB?
I doubt if a postal service could be 'renationalised' by a Scottish government. As I understand it, the privatisation legislation concerning Royal Mail contained various obligations on the part of Royal Mail to maintain a certain level of service across the UK. If Scotland ceased to be part of the UK, there would no longer be any obligation for Royal Mail to collect and deliver in Scotland. Royal Mail would, from a Scottish point of view, be a foreign company and so no part of it could be 'renationalised'. An independent Scotland would either have to have its postal service run by a foreign company (with which it would have to negotiate a new level of service) or set up its own postal service from scratch.
re: Why call it GB?
As an Englishman I am hesitant to get into a debate on Scottish Independence, however I would make the following comments
1. The SNP appears to be ruled by it's heart and not it's head ( and its mainly cultural argument).
2. You can have cultural independence ( and as a Northern Englishman ruled by them pesky Southerners I would have to be all for that) without political independence.
3. The Scottish legal system ensures that there is in fact a fair amount of independence built in.
4. (LOL) If a referendum had been held in England most of the English population would have voted for Scottish Independence ! Despite it's protestations to the contrary the SNP s position ( and appeal ?) is based on it being recognisably anti -English.
To get back on topic the SNP has obviously not done any study on the cost of universal postal delivery in Scotland. The proportionate deficit in delivering to the Highlands and Islands in the context of an-all Scotland postal service is much more than in an all-UK service. It is a fact that the Universal Postal Delivery is a net loss to Royal Mail and would be a much bigger loss to a prospective Scottish General Post Office.
Changing the subject slightly to the case of Ireland,from 1801 until partition it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so how you describe the UK and Ireland is entirely within the context of period, up until 1922 part of the UK, up until 1948 part of the Commonwealth, and after then part of the Europe. Just to add confusion many Irish people still consider Northern Ireland to be part of Ireland ( and many English people wish it was).
Malcolm
Malcolm
re: Why call it GB?
To further add to the confusion: in Rugby Union, the national Irish team represents the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
re: Why call it GB?
I feel sorry for the Welsh. No-one seems to talk about them as possibly being independent. In the Canadian patriotic song (the original version) "The Maple Leaf Forever" there is the line "The Thistle, Shamrock, Rose entwined / The Maple Leaf forever!" No Wales?
Then again: "The Thistle, Shamrock, Rose, and Leek" just wouldn't fit and just sounds silly (sillier?).
re: Why call it GB?
Wales is a different case constitutionally. "England and Wales" has been a legal entity since at least the 12th century. There was no seperate legal, civil government or educational system in Wales as there has always been in Scotland and Northern Ireland- which is why Wales has an Assembly ( i.e. an additional tier of government) rather than a Parliament which is a seperate,albeit in some matters subsidiary, executive function.
Technically Welsh independence, while possible, would be a much more complex operation,as an entire legal,parliamentary, and administrative system would have to be set up from scratch, whereas in Scotland and Northern Ireland the "nuts and bolts" are present in the amount of distinctive institutions already there.
re: Why call it GB?
and, as my friend reminded me, when I mentioned this discussion, there are only 46 states in the US, the remainder being commonwealths, so, technically, we ought to be referred to as the US&CoA, unless you wanted to add territories and districts.
OK, back to the Celts, Anglos, Saxons, Orangemen, Picts, Normans, Beakers, Bretons, Roman hangerson, Norsemen, and descendants of Czechs and Poles flying in your RAF and the immense expatriated former colonials.
re: Why call it GB?
I just bought a new album to put my triangle stamps in and the Heading is called Great Britain with a line under it saying Official name United Kingdom. Probably because as David said this is how Scott Catalog has it.
re: Why call it GB?
"The clue is in the title. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
You have the words, united, kingdom, of, great, britain, northern and ireland. The most important word is OF!! The two districts OF Great Britain and Northern Ireland are united to form a kingdom.
Therefore the "Country" is Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of course this is shortened to Great Britain. (the Northern Irish being ignored by the rest of the "kingdom", as per usual).
You also have the "Kingdom of Saudia Arabia", nobody calls it "Kingdom" as a country."
re: Why call it GB?
The stamps of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, and later of Great Britain and Northern Ireland never had the country name on the stamps. And saying "Great Britain" is a lot shorter than the entire title.
re: Why call it GB?
So when I address a letter to my cousin in Southampton, and put "Southampton, England" on it, is that not correct? Similarly, when I write to my cousin in Belfast, I put "Belfast, Northern Ireland" only. In neither case do I put United Kingdom. Am I wrong? They seem to get through Okay.
re: Why call it GB?
"So when I address a letter to my cousin in Southampton, and put "Southampton, England" on it, is that not correct? Similarly, when I write to my cousin in Belfast, I put "Belfast, Northern Ireland" only. In neither case do I put United Kingdom. Am I wrong? They seem to get through Okay."
re: Why call it GB?
We are talking convention here rather than legaleese. As long as the person sorting the mail understands what he/she sees, and providing they are not riding some political hobby-horse, there is no problem.
We over here cannot expect citizens from across the pond to understand our constitutional foibles ( particularly as we don't actually have any written constitution at all !!), the same as they cannot expect us to understand theirs. It gives us an interesting talking point - we can delight in our differences as much as in our sameness. It is a fact that the U.S. systems of Government and Jurisprudence are directly descended from ours, although it is inevitable that after 240 odd years there has been some divergence, in the same way as our system in 2016, alledgedly directly descended from Magna Carta in 1215, would be completely unrecognisable to the authors of the latter.
Malcolm