Chris

Actually, The Isle of Man isn't in the UK. It's a Crown dependency, as are the Channel Islands.

From:

What

nancyblue said.

I believe most of the islands around the coasts are oficially part of the UK; the Shetlands, Orkneys, Scilly, Isle of Wight, etc, since they are considered parts of England, Scotland, etc, and don't have many people living there, but the IOM and the Channel Islands are crown protectorates and not part of the UK.

From:

Much as many people would like it to be otherwise, Cornwall is offically part of England.

From:

roadriverrail.livejournal.com

See how far you get running through there with a St. George's Cross waving, and no fair only running by the summer homes of the wealthy.

From:

and this has relevence on it's status because...

From:

roadriverrail.livejournal.com

How about we just cut this to the chase.

Because your mom!

From:

bernmarx.livejournal.com

Well, that's useful. I'll have an easier time keeping the terms straight now. :)

From:

savorie.livejournal.com

Agreed-- useful!

From:

Of course as my hubby noted, it left off Cornwall (and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) and many dislike the use of the term British Isles to describe the Republic of Ireland. I don't use it that way personally.

It's all so complicated.

From:

Yeah, I added in Cornwall, Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands thusly (http://pics.livejournal.com/the_xtina/pic/0001tr03) (the latter two being dependencies), but then it started getting wicked complicated.

There should be like WikiUK, or something. The nations can edit themselves into or out of the various governmental configurations.

From:

In fact, "British Isles" does not legally refer to the Republic at all. It is on the passports of those in Mannin and the Channel Islands because they are not in the UK, but are considered British nationals.

And a wiki UK could be so much fun! It is hard to get one's head around.

From:

Cornwall is in Great Britain, but the ROI is outside the British Isles. Very close, though :)

From:

*looks* According to Wikipedia, there's apparently some bad feeling over using 'British Isles' to refer to ROI/Ireland. So, uh. Suppose I could put that on the outside of the BI, and put a little connector dealiebopper in, as I did for IOM/CI?

How did this get to be a project? *amused*

From:

At least you didn't just call it all "England". :)

From:

This is true!

From:

ivy

Oh, no, then they'll be refighting the Troubles, but digitally. Wikipedia has had this problem recently, I understand. I had a small personal "grrrr" at seeing Ireland in "British Isles", and may have muttered something about Cromwell, but I'm not actually militant about it. Fortunately, it's the Internet, so there are zillions of people who are, on every possible side. [rueful grin]

From:

Damn, yeah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/name_debate).

From:

There's no separate entity outside of England called Cornwall, it's a county of England, so no, that isn't correct.

From:

Cornwall is administered as a county of England but its constitutional status is actually much more complicated. I'm sure you are aware that it is a Duchy and has had varying degrees of sovereignty over the centuries and official "accommodation" stemming from its relationship with the Crown and earlier independent status.

Might I suggest you look at Bernard Deacon's Cornwall: A Concise History which is just out from the University of Wales Press.

From:

I'm aware of Cornwall's history. My stepmother is Cornish and spent most of her career as a history teacher.

However, history is just that, history. Various part of England have been separate kingdoms through the last thousand years, right now however, they're all part of England.

From:

Well, I'm an anthropologist who has been working with the Cornish since 1994. I did my PhD on Cornish nationalism (UCLA 1998) and have written about 30 articles on Cornwall. I was a Lecturer at the University of Exeter's Institute of Cornish Studies, a consultant for English Heritage on Cornish issues and am currently finishing a book on Cornish identity politics and economic development. And oh yeah, I know lots of Cornish people too.

Cornwall's legal standing within the UK is actually quite unusual, and very fascinating. If you think that history is "just history" then you probably don't understand many of the conflicts happening in the world today, and you probably don't know a lot about modern Cornwall. I don't think Cornwall will at any time in the near future, if ever, be administered as anything more than a County with the separate administrations afforded it as a Duchy. That does not deny the fact that the actual legal position of the territory is contested, confusing, and not as simple as you want to make it out to be. I'm sure you have some command of how this situation can occur given the complexities of British law.

Many English people today seem very threatened by the assertions of other people's very legitimate cultures and history with "those islands". I understand the many reasons why this is happening, but I still think it's not the most productive response.

From:

Everything depends on context. In the context of information on how things came to be, explaining current situations, etc, etc, the history is very important and I understand many parts of it. I've lived in several places, including two ex-British areas (the US and the Republic of Ireland, the latter being rather more important on that front since it's far more recent), I've narrowly avoided riots and demonstrations started because of British occupation where speaking with my accent may have led to injury or death. I don't think you have any basis for deciding what I do or do not understand.

For the exact current state, the history is irrelevant. Cornwall is contested and complicated, sure (as many British territories will be and will continue to be), but as of right now it is not a separate entity from England. That's quite simple, which is the point for a map that is trying to simplify the understanding of something which is complicated enough already.

From:

I can deduce what you understand by the way in which you are writing. It seems to me that you view history through a very narrow and not very accurate lens. First, to conceive of either the US or the ROI as "former British areas" is problematic. For instance, I live in a state, Florida, that was under British rule for only 10 short years, but was Spanish for several hundred prior to that. Much of the US was never British legally or culturally. Lots of it was Mexico! The relationship between the ROI and the British state is much easier to discuss than the relationship between that territory and its culture, as I'm sure you know. Just because it was owned by the British doesn't make it British.

The fact is, things are NOT black and white. Maps are constructions, but they do not reflect reality. I don't think sovereign Native American territories should be left off our maps either. Cornwall was actually demarcated as a separate nation on British maps until the Tudor era and it even had its own native legal system until the 19th century.

And the history is not irrelevant in Cornwall, or anywhere else in Europe where nationalist/regionalist/separatist movements are happening. It is a response to long, long periods of social, political and economic marginalism, frequently rooted in cultural difference and territorial integrity (both of which Cornwall has). In my view, the reductions you make for your convenience do very little to educate people about the nature of modern Europe, and that is a problem.

From:

I lived in Boston, which is a very ex-British area. cf "The British Are Coming!" (or the regulars are coming or whatever he actually said). Both that area and the ROI are areas formally controlled by the British, which is what I said. I'm also aware of how much of California was taken from Mexico, for example. Really don't need a geography lesson.

Not every complication and aspect of history can be represented in a snapshot of the current state of any part of the world, otherwise maps would be so full of information that is no help whatsoever to be utterly useless.

We obviously don't agree, we're obviously not going to agree. Ergo, continuing this conversation is pointless. Have a nice life.

From: