United Kingdom began in 1801
It would be good in terms of accuracy to use "United Kingdom" as part of a location in Britain only when that is historically accurate. Please don't use it for earlier times.
Answers
-
FamilySearch only shows United Kingdom as the suffix for places on its database when the date does relate to events taking place from 1801 onwards. However, many users choose the "wrong option" and apply place names with a United Kingdom suffix even when an event took place in at an earlier period.
Perhaps you are offering general advice to users here, but FamilySearch itself appears to offer the correct options.
At least two options are generally offered for users to record a place name on the "Standards" database, one for events that took place up to 1801 and the other (including the United Kingdom suffix) only to be used for events from 1801:
3 -
Somewhat unrelated, but I wish they would add Great Britain as an option for 1707-1800. It feels weird that they just skip past it.
1 -
@BraydenGraves said
I wish they would add Great Britain as an option for 1707-1800. It feels weird that they just skip past it.
It's totally weird - so weird that I feel there must be a story that we don't know...
Of course, I could then throw in the question of why "United Kingdom" applies to England, Scotland and Wales from 1801 - but not to Ireland when the whole point of 1801 was to bring Ireland into the Union?
Do I expect an answer to that last paragraph? No not really...
1 -
@Adrian Bruce1 If I had to guess, it's because it would be more confusing if Ireland was included, because then there would need to be two United Kingdoms, one including Ireland and one for the current day UK.
0 -
@BraydenGraves suggested:
"If I had to guess, it's because it would be more confusing if Ireland was included, because then there would need to be two United Kingdoms, one including Ireland and one for the current day UK."
Hmm - your guess is as good as mine, but I would point out that the post-1922 UK does include Northern Ireland in the standard naming from FamilySearch. Admitted the official name did change from "The United Kingdom of ... and Ireland" (1801-1921) to "The United Kingdom of ... and Northern Ireland" (1922 on) but since the most anyone writes genealogically is "United Kingdom", that doesn't seem a particularly likely line of reasoning.
Personally, I suspect that it had more to do with not upsetting Irish-Americans...
0 -
@Adrian Bruce1 "I would point out that the post-1922 UK does include Northern Ireland in the standard naming from FamilySearch. Admitted the official name did change from "The United Kingdom of … and Ireland" (1801-1921) to "...The United Kingdom of … and Northern Ireland" (1922 on) but since the most anyone writes genealogically is 'United Kingdom'..."
That's kind of my point, the name barely changed after the majority of Ireland separated, which could lead to a lot of confusion. If you want to avoid that confusion, then Northern Ireland being the only part of Ireland included makes some sort of sense.
Also, how do you only quote a specific section of a message?
0 -
Re quoting a specific section:
- Copy and paste the relevant bit;
- Click the backwards P (the "Pilcrow") outside the margin by the side of the copied in bit;
- Choose the Quote from the pop-up and then choose Quote again (this feels like selecting the same thing twice so I'm not sure if I'm missing something).
0 -
@BraydenGraves said
" ... That's kind of my point, the name barely changed after the majority of Ireland separated, which could lead to a lot of confusion. If you want to avoid that confusion, then Northern Ireland being the only part of Ireland included makes some sort of sense. ... "
Err. Maybe - that's certainly one way of looking at it. Unfortunately, it rather clashes with my own knowledge - which, adimittedly, people from outside the British Isles might not have.
The way to remove any confusion, and also not upset Irish-Americans, is simply to do what most British and Irish genealogists already do in their own files, and terminate the placename with the England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland element. Forget "United Kingdom" (and forget "Great Britain" also). It serves no useful purpose - it's not as if there's another England to be distinguished from "ours". Lots of bits are different in each of the 5 Home Countries - the start of civil registration for one (though England & Wales tend to march in step). It would also reduce the workload in the standard places database as new places would only need to go in once.
But I'm not hopeful...
0 -
Err. Maybe - that's certainly one way of looking at it. Unfortunately, it rather clashes with my own knowledge - which, adimittedly, people from outside the British Isles might not have.
It worked! Thank you, I've been wondering how to do that for a while.
You're right that people outside the British Isles wouldn't have that information. As an American, I actually keep a chart of the country merges in my photos app just so that I can keep it straight when I have to talk about it. (Which, outside of FamilySearch, doesn't come up that often.) I have ancestors from all over the UK, so I find the information just barely relevant enough to keep on hand. (I actually deleted it for a bit, which ended up causing some confusion a while back, so I found it again.)
and also not upset Irish-Americans
I guess they (We? I have 3 Irish ancestors I've found...) have a bit more of a reputation than I'd realized? I know their known for being proud of their heritage, but that usually just revolves around Saint Patrick's day in my experience.
The way to remove any confusion… is simply to do what most British and Irish genealogists already do in their own files, and terminate the placename with the England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland element. Forget "United Kingdom" (and forget "Great Britain" also). It serves no useful purpose - it's not as if there's another England to be distinguished from "ours". Lots of bits are different in each of the 5 Home Countries - the start of civil registration for one (though England & Wales tend to march in step). It would also reduce the workload in the standard places database as new places would only need to go in once.
Yeah, you probably have a point there.
0