Should I be recording someones birth as England or United Kingdom
I have some records as showing birth listed as United Kingdom and others as England. Is there a correct one? Is it ok to change a United Kingdom to England if I know they were born in England?
@British Isles Family History Research
Best Answers
-
Sorry, but have to disagree. They are not interchangeable! The United Kingdon includes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. England is part of the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is not just England. The designations for the British Isles are quite complicated. Please see the diagram below for the various divisions of the British Isles or go to https://www.tenontours.com/difference-between-british-isles-united-kingdom-great-britain/
0 -
As someone who lives in England, with Ancestry in Scotland, Wales and England I am very particular to put the Country as it should be. We are proud of our countries and wish them to be recorded correctly I particularly like the fan chart which shows the countries and must admit I like each colour to represent the country as a separate colour. I like my grandchildren to see at a glance exactly where their heritage is. I also admit to changing the designation from United Kingdom to reflect this, and my husband does the same. Don't get me wrong I think Family Search is the best thing since 'sliced bread' and love it with a passion, this is, I think the only anomily, which I think needs to be clarified. We are a small but very diverse collection of countries and each of us would like the countries recorded correctly, it is part of our heritage. Each county within the countries has their own dialect we are very diverse it's part of the fun of Family History. Unfortunately the default sometimes changes my corrections back to the United Kingdom but I cheerfully change it back and perhaps this will change in time.
I have been doing Family History for over 40 years and teaching it with passion as a Temple and Family History Consultant.I will admit again that I suggest to anyone who will listen that they record the Countries as they should be. Perhaps this is a bit long winded but I hope it helps. Stay Safe everyone
0
Answers
-
I would say yes its ok.
can you provide a specific example we can look at?
(have an ID?)
0 -
@Roger Ellis_1
.
Roger
.
Personal choice really.
.
I really do not start using the Suffix of "United Kingdom" for, Births; Marriages; and/or, Deaths, until 1952 (ie. Queen Elizabeth II's coronation) onwards.
.
Most of those I have know and have met from there
(Family, Relatives and Friends):
From England, consider they were from England.
From Wales, consider they were from Wales.
From Scotland, consider they were from Scotland.
From Northern Ireland, consider they were from Northern Ireland
(the latter, even, just Ireland).
.
Plus:
'Registry of Birth, Death and Marriages':
- 'General Registry Office' of 'England and Wales' (GRO)
- 'General Registry Office' of 'Scotland' (GROS)
- 'General Registry Office' of 'Northern Ireland' (GRONI)
.
WikiPedia
United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
Terminology of the British Isles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isles
.
Quote
------------------
Etymology and terminology
.
The 1707 Acts of Union declared that the kingdoms of England and Scotland were "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain". The term "United Kingdom" has occasionally been used as a description for the former kingdom of Great Britain, although its official name from 1707 to 1800 was simply "Great Britain". The Acts of Union 1800 united the kingdom of Great Britain and the kingdom of Ireland in 1801, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Following the partition of Ireland and the independence of the Irish Free State in 1922, which left Northern Ireland as the only part of the island of Ireland within the United Kingdom, the name was changed to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
.
Although the United Kingdom is sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries
------------------
.
So although 'politically' correct, if it were me, personally, I would be very judicious (ie. sparing) with the Suffix of "United Kingdom".
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
When one standardizes the place name on FamilySearch, there are two permissible standardized place names involving England. For example, one could use Romsey, Hampshire, England or one could expand it and use Romsey, Hampshire, England, United Kingdom. FamilySearch allows either of the two as a standardized place name.
0 -
The diagram from Vivien Sinclair Brown is really nice.
0 -
Thanks. I cannot take credit for it. I've had it in my files for quite a while and tried to see where I got it from before I posted, but to no avail. It is a great way to keep all these divisions straight!
0 -
If you know that the birth place was in England then I would suggest you put England. I know of several places that have the same names but some are in England and some in Wales x
0 -
Thanks for the input everyone. Sounds like there is not a hard and fast rule and that if I can confirm the country within the United Kingdom then it would be improper to change to specifiy the particular country.
0 -
I was under the impression that those born after 1801 are listed as the United Kingdom whilst those born before 1801 were listed by their specific country, at least for England, Scotland, and Wales. But what do I know, as my ancestors came to Canada in the early 1900s and my parents moved to the United States before my birth. I am curious as to whether dates of birth have anything to do with the designations. I like my fan chart colours, too.
0 -
England Scotland and Wales - continued to exist after 1801 - so why would they not be listed?
merely that they are sub entities - of United Kingdom.
Its like if I know someone is born in Georgia, USA I could just put "United States"
but if I put Georgia, United States - thats better
and even the city and county.
United Kingdom is a level of above England/Wales/ etc.
but that doesnt mean we dont put the lower levels also.
It is not a choice of either or
it is what is the best full description . . . which in most cases after 1801 would include both England and United Kingdom (along with lower level identities)
1 -
In my grandmother's birthplace there are two standardization options, and they both seem to recognize that England, Wales, and Scotland continued to exist after 1801. In my gmother's case, I can choose either -
Aston Manor, Warwickshire, England, United Kingdom
Populated place, 1801 - present
Aston Manor, Warwickshire, England
Populated place, Unknown - 1801
As my grandmother was born in 1890, I would choose the first as it appears to fit the standardization datewise and placewise. It recognizes that she was English, but also acknowledges her country as the United Kingdom. So all my English ancestors who were born after 1801 appear in the fan chart as United Kingdom, whereas, those born prior to 1901 appear as England unless someone else has gone into the Family Search records again and changed the standardization designation to England.
Curious as to what other people think of this issue - as I am not an authority or current resident of the area. I don't mind being non-standard if there are good reasons for it, such as designating various lines and instilling identity awareness.
I am also interested in understanding more of some of the other standardization choices, as for some people there seem to be many to choose from, especially around Bristol and the surrounding municipalities. It helps to know when churches split or were built, the differences between civil and religious parishes, and other things, and when places like West Midlands were formed. I know little about these distinctions, but am gradually learning. A little knowledge is somethings a dangerous thing, as it can lead to over-confidence where none is warranted.
0 -
Hi, I agree it is confusing over which County Bristol is/was in. It depended on what part of Bristol you were born in. South of the river Avon it was Somerset, North of the river it was Gloucestershire. Also Bristol was created a County in it’s own right from 1373-1974. In 1974 the County of Avon was formed but then changed back to Gloucestershire in 1974. ( I am a Bristolian)x
0 -
Roger,
I'm not sure I understood that last post...so to be clear here is one last thought. Sorry if I'm beating the proverbial dead horse or getting the wrong end of the stick.
Not only is it proper and nice to have the country identified...it is essential! Places have to be uniquely identified for correct research to take place. The parish and/or village/town, county, and country all need to be in place. Here is a great resource that can be used to identify places in England. I use it constantly. BTW, I am from England. https://www.familysearch.org/mapp/
1 -
I appreciate this is an old post, but I'm battling with myself over whether to simplify my place/country names in my database.
For example, I currently use the following:
pre 1707 - Liverpool, Lancashire, England
1707-1800 - Liverpool, Lancashire, England, Great Britain
1801 - date - Liverpool, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom (I don't use Merseyside post 1974, as both are formally accepted as addresses, Merseyside being WITHIN the historic county of Lancashire, and it confuses the issue - especially for people unfamiliar with the country/area and political boundary changes, who may think they're two different cities).
This does mean that it's not uncommon for someone to be recorded as born in GB and married/died in UK.
In a genealogy software thread this week, someone said they just use England, and dispense with the changes to names that reflect our changes in political unions.
My instinct is that it should be accurate as much as possible, but it would certainly simplify things if I merged them all into "Liverpool, Lancashire, England" and ignore the political union suffix at the end of the place name - not least because the database is 30k strong and there are some early errors in designation, and I haven't found a way to bulk change place names for maybe 100 people with the wrong suffix out of a group of 1000.
What are people's thoughts about whether to record GB/UK or to stop at England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland (which, of course, has its own additional political complexities in naming)
0 -
The FamilySearch database offers two basic choices of format when inputting places within England, as shown in what is offered to me when I want to enter an event that took place in the town (now city) of Sunderland.
These formats are meant to be selected by the user based on the year in which the event occurred. As you see, no option is provided to include "Great Britain" in the Place field. Whilst I "play by the rules" here, I would much prefer to drop the "unnecessary" United Kingdom suffix for all time periods. However, because of their political views, many would want to see "United Kingdom" included for events that took place after the 1800 Act of Union came into force (in the following year).
One possible problem in opting to record events from 1801 without the suffix could arise if the FamilySearch algorithm was programmed to reject (i.e. show a "non-standardized date" warning) any format that did not conform to the current "standard". However, at present there is the flexibility for users to make the choice of dropping the United Kingdom suffix (for post 1800 events) without being presented with a data warning sign (red exclamation mark).
0
