 | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | (...) Heh. It may be sobering to point out that the "brand" of UK was born in 1800, following the forced Act of Union with Ireland. That's when the name becomes valid, and it starts a new era of incredible colonial bloodshed. But I'm not sure all of (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Indeed. But is was not until more recently untail it came into common usage. Most of the the world still refers to the UK as Britain, or more annoyingly England. (...) I do not doubt what you are saying. However, I have to say that the same (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A question of remembrance... —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) Those have long been a problem. I can agree with respect to "UK" not being the common usage; however, the official usage dates from that period, and in the records it's standard from 1800 even when the records are informal (although the (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
