Template talk:United Kingdom constitutional formation

Formation of the United Kingdom
	Statute of Rhuddlan (1284)
	Laws in Wales Acts (1535–42)
	Union of the Crowns (1603)
	Acts of Union (1707)
	Act of Union (1801)
	Government of Ireland Act (1920)
	Anglo–Irish Treaty (1921)
	Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act (1927)
	De-annexation (1955)

This template was considered for deletion on 9 October 2010. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Statute of Rhuddlan

I'm not sure the Statute of Rhuddlan should be included in this template. It was basically a law dealing with the internal arrangement of Wales. The Acts of Union 1536-1543 joined England and Wales together, which was really the first step in the creation of the UK. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 :) The 1535 Act refers constantly to the new shires in the Marches being created to a similar model as "the three Shires of North Wales". Those three having been created by the Statute of Rhuddlan. It also makes reference to towns being annexed to other existing shires such as Glamorgan, Carmarthen, Cardigan and Pembroke. The 1535 Act is merely to do with laws in an existing English dominion — a dominion which was created by the Statue of Rhuddlan. Owain 10:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Rhuddlan created Wales as a personal feif of the King's. This is not the same thing as uniting the two kingdoms. For example, the Kingdom of Ireland also shared the same monarch as England, but they were two separate kingdoms, not united until the Act of Union 1800.--JW1805 (Talk) 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "Act of Union" between England and Wales. The area of Wales was gradually conquered by the Anglo-Normans in the same way as England was. The conquest began in 1066 and was finally complete by 1282. Hence the Statue of Rhuddlan confirming that all the lands were now part of the same realm: "The Divine Providence, which is unerring in its own Government, among the Gifts of its dispensation, wherewith it hath vouchsafed to distinguish us and our Realm of England, hath now of its Favour, wholly and entirely transferred under our proper Dominion, the Land of Wales, with its Inhabitants, heretofore subject unto us, in feudal right, all Obstacles whatsoever ceasing; and hath annexed and united the same unto the Crown of the aforesaid Realm, as a Member of the same body." Owain 09:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, when I say "Acts of Union", I mean the "Acts of Union 1536-1543", even though they weren't called that at the time, that's what they are called now. Your quote says that Wales is "under our proper Dominion....subject to us, in feudal right" and "annexed and united the same unto the Crown". This seems to indicate what I'm saying (and what is said in the various Wikipedia articles) that Rhuddlan put Wales under the English Monarch as a personal feif, but did not quite merge Wales into the Kingdom of England. Just because the same King ruled England and Wales doesn't mean that England and Wales were the same state (see Personal union). The so-called "Acts of Union" had the overall effect of joining England and Wales together, and creating a new state (or legal entity) England and Wales, where Wales now had representatives in the English Parliament. Thus, these acts are the counterparts of the later Act of Union 1707 (which joined England and Scotland), and the Act of Union 1800 (which joined Great Britain and Ireland).--JW1805 (Talk) 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you like to call them, they are not Acts of Union. The Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 were passed by both the Scottish and Irish Parliaments respectively, as well as that of England. That is what is meant by "union". The Laws in Wales Act 1535 was only passed by the English Parliament to extend English law into a dominion that was already part of England. That is not a union. The correct titles of the Acts are "Laws in Wales", irrespective of what you think. Why you insist on renaming the article is beyond me. Why not have a go renaming some other Acts while you're at it? How about renaming the Licensing Act 2003 the Binge-drinking Act 2004? You are in danger of violating the Three-revert rule - I think we need someone else to mediate here... Owain 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are off-topic here anyway. Discussions about whether the Wikipedia article should be "Acts of Union" or "Laws in Wales Acts" should be discussed at Talk:Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542. I put in a Request for Move on that, so hopefully others will contribute to the discussion, and it will be settled one way or the other.--JW1805 (Talk) 23:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

atc spam all diskpart 10GB 14.243.11.230 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been further discussion on the inclusion of earlier treaties specific to either of the states which would go on to form the UK here. In line with the comments expressed ive removed the Anglo-Welsh specific treaties to leave only the treaties which directly lead to the formation of the UK. siarach 13:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive created a seperate template which contains the Anglo-Welsh treaties here -Template:WalesinUK as well as the later treaties relevant to the UK itself for use on pages dealing with Wales and those treaties.siarach 14:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key for me is in the formation of Great Britain it was formed by the Kingdoms of England and Scotland (by acts of parliament of the same, Acts of Union 1707 (transcript). The area we now call Wales was (and is), it seems, simply a part of England as the ancient kingdom of Wessex is (excepting that Wales was never a kingdom) - at least until the Welsh nationalists get their way!

1920 Government of Ireland Act

This didnt essentially change the title of the United Kingdom as it remained The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until the Anglo-Irish Treaty. I understand the importance of it in terms of dividing Ireland into North and South but is it important enough to be in this template? --Horses In The Sky 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My logic for including it was that it changed the constitutent parts of the Union. Before there was England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland. After there was England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deannexation of England and Wales (1955)

I think the de-annexation of England and Wales (1955) must be added to the template. How do you think about it? --yes0song 14:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree. First and foremost there doesn't appear to ba an article to link to. Secondly this template relates to the [b]Formation[/b] of the UK. While an important constitutional step for Wales this was not an event in the formation of the UK. Yorkshire Phoenix

14:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have to disagree with its inclusion on the grounds aforesaid. Jhamez84 23:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is definately a place for a template which lists all such treaties within the UK but, for the same reason the pre UK Anglo-Welsh treaties should not be included, the de-annexation of Wales has no place on a template dealing with the formation of the UK ( had de-annexation also resulted in independence from the UK that would be a different matter). siarach 13:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes0song, I do not know where you get this date "1955" from? The only thing that seems to have happened in 1955 was that, arguably for the first time in history, Wales had an official capital declared (Cardiff). When you talk of "de-annexation" I assume that you are referring to the repeal of the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 (as it applies to Wales, but not Berwick) by the fourth section of the Welsh Language Act 1967. If this truly was "de-annexation" then the UK Parliament managed to legislate for it in a most obscure fashion - probably intentionally. --Mais oui! 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the date "1955" from History of Wales#The Twentieth Century. ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑筆跡 다지모) 14:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England and Wales

Wales did not play any part in forming the UK - the earliest signs of which can be traced no earlier than the Union of Crowns between Scotland and England. To say otherwise goes against the grain of both academic and lay thought on the matter. If the annexation of Wales into England is to be included then so should the annexation of the Northern Isles by Scotland, the Lordship of the Isles by Scotland, the creation and abolition of the Cornish Stannary Parliament, Northumbria officially becoming part of England under the Treaty of York etc etc. Seeing as the inclusion of Statute of Rhuddlan would mean the inclusion of the treaties which formed/were relevant only to the nations which THEN went on to form the UK you would also have to go back to Dal Riata and Pictavia which merged to form Scotland as well as the Heptarchy which preceeded the single Kingdom of England and so on, so forth. The two primary and only independent participants in the formation of the UK were England and Scotland - there is absolutely no controversy or ambiguity over this - and if earlier treaties specific to internal politics of either of those nations are to be included in the template then there are myriad others beyond these Anglo-Welsh ones which should also be included and this would simply be ridiculous. The only legitimate inclusion of Wales in the template would be under mention of its de-annexation from England in 1955 as shown in a template at the bottom of the talk page of the template as this was, unlike Rhuddlan, relevant to and occurred within the UK. (pasted from ealrier post on a seperate talk page) siarach 11:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disk erro 14.243.11.230 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this edit. Wales is currently one of the main subnational entities in the UT. In this context, it is import to list the legislation that made that happen. Wales is not in the same category as Dal Riata, Pictavia, or the Heptarchy, which are entities that predated the current Home Nations (and whose annexation didn't involve any Acts of Parliament). My idea when I created this template was to list the legislative acts which formed the UK. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And neither of the treaties you wish to add relating to Wales were legislative acts which formed the UK. Wales should certainly be mentioned with regard to its de-Annexation but having its annexation listed is precisely akin to listing to formation of Scotland from Dal Riata and Pictavia or England from the preceeding Heptarchy of English Kingdoms. While im dubious about the inclusion of the specific Anglo-Irish treaties pre Union of Crowns as well Ireland at least was a technically seperate entity to England and Scotland while Wales simply was not. As it stands this template is misnamed - as it lists acts,treaties etc which led to the formation of the England which went on to form the union with Scotland and THEN lists the acts which genuinely formed the UK. The fact that Wales has now been de-annexed and holds some sort of status as a nation within the UK equal to that of Scotland and England can in no way retrospectively confer nation status upon it pre-Union. Wales entered the union much as Yorkshire or Wessex or the Hebrides; a mere territory within a nation. siarach 10:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entities currently referred to as the Home Nations are England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. What this template does is list how those entities came together through legislative acts. (Someone added the Union of the Crowns....which I'm not sure really belongs here...). That's what the template is, no more, no less. It is completely reasonable to gather these acts into a template. The fact that the UK didn't exist in 1284 is irelevent. Yorkshire , Wessex and the Hebrides are sub-national entities, inclusion of all these in one template would not be practical, since there is no article about how Yorkshire became part of England, and most of these did not involve legislation. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you want is a template for the history of the home nations within the British Isles (or something along those lines) - not one for the formation of the UK as this is not something which can be pinpointed any earlier than the union of crowns in 1603. ATM this template is very misleading,anglocentric/cymrocentric and contains several treaties without direct relevance with regard to the formation of the United Kingdom. siarach 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Welsh ones as these where part of the formation of the Kingdom of England and not the UK. --Barry talk 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so although i fear we may need to resort to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee to solve the dispute over the inclusion of treaties relevant only to England and not Great Britain/United Kingdom. siarach 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are removing the personal unions involving Ireland and Wales, then we must remove that of Scotland too: only the political unions formed the UK, not the personal ones. --Mais oui! 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Mas oui! - then so be it. It makes far more sense to start with 1707 - which saw the merging of the only two vaguely sovereign states in the British isles - than it does to start with the irrelevant treaties which formalised annexation of Wales to England. Even the union of Ireland, a puppet state/colony under English rule for centuries, is justifiable given its nominally/technically independent status prior to 1801 whereas the inclusion of Wales - at the time basically a part of England conquered centuries before any concept of a UK - simply cannot be justified within a template which claims to show the treaties which led directly to the formation of the United Kingdom. siarach 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. The "union" of England and Wales (or whatever you call it) was not of the same ilk (whatever an ilk is) as that of England and Scotland, as evinced by the fact that England was still referred to as "England" afterwards and did not become "Britain" or even "England and Wales" until much later. Deb 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally reject the notion that the merging of England and Wales is irrelavent to the formation of the UK. How can you maintain that? England, Scotland, Wales, and N Ireland were once separate, now they are together. That is what is in the template. Maybe the title "Formation of the UK" is the problem? What would be a better name for these Acts, which clearly have a common thread, and it is entirely appropriate to list them together in some fashion. (Maybe Joining of the Home Nations of the United Kingdom?... seems too wordy).--JW1805 (Talk) 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England annexing Wales has nothing to do with the formation of the UK it was mearly the Kingdom of England gaining territory you may as well include every single piece of legislation and treaties that added terriory to the England, Scotland Wales and Ireland, the only thing that formed the UK was the Act of Union 1707 --Barry talk 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to an extent with both the previous posts by JW1805 and Barry. My problem with the listing of acts which predate 1603 and/or 1707 is mainly connected with the way this template is named and represented. As i previously stated the inclusion of the Anglo-Welsh specific acts ( which, again, as previously stated do not bear direct relevance to the formation of the UK) would be fine but not within a template which claims to mark the treaties which formed the UK. Wales being conquered and then formally annexed by England did not have any significant/direct role in forming the UK. The UK was formed by Scotland and England and technically, later on ( and i must stress the technically), by Ireland. Wales is by far the least signficant Home Nation in this regard and is without ANY direct link to the formation of the UK. If the Template was named Joining of the Home Nations of the United Kingdom or something similar then i would have absolutely no quible whatsoever and so perhaps a move to something along these lines is the answer to this dispute? siarach 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Legislative History of the United Kingdom Home Nations ? Maybe a bit ambiguous? I'll think about it further...--JW1805 (Talk) 05:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Personal and legislative unions of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom". Rationale: "home nations" is primarily used in a sporting context, and, to my ears at least, just sounds a bit informal, unacademic, and even sloppy. Also, there are two very different types of union being shown here: monarchs taking rule over more than one country: Rhuddlan, Crown of Ireland Act and Union of the Crowns; and the uniting (or separation) of legislatures/legislature-making authority: the rest. The 1927 Act is neither of those, but I can understand why it is there. --Mais oui! 07:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neustrianos edits

Copied from my talk pageThis template is not a mini list of acts of the English Parliament please stop making it as such thanks. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was edit the appearance of the template to fit that of Parliamentary Acts. I did not alter the constitution of the template, by adding or subtracting any link. The topics are not universal in scope, but dated to a certain time and procession of events in the government. It is proper to display the Acts of Parliament in the way Parliament would, to accurately represent what they had done. This leaves no room for spin, but it does give depth to the issue. Neustriano 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the Parliamentary Acts you choose where those of the Parliament of England hense the wording Union with Scotland Act 1706 this is anglo-centric and totally ignores the fact that the that the Parliament of Scotland also passed the act. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam 14.243.11.230 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that part on the Scottish Parliament page. I have now added it to the template. Maybe it looks like clutter, but I hope not. Neustriano 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about merging the Union of the Crowns with the present Acts of Union 1707 article, so that ALL Acts of Union from 1603-1707 are represented? This would give a better, over-all view of the entire process. Yes, I recognize that the Tudor-Stewart treaties of Perpetual Peace and Greenwich would be separate from the Acts of Parliament--but maybe they can be united in one article of their own as well. Neustriano 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The old wording was fine there was no need to change it to fit the list of parliamentary acts of the Parliament of England. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think for navigation templates, we should stick to using the article titles, and only rename if we need to remove disambigioutions. 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping we could have a Jacobean Acts of Scottish and English Parliaments template between 1603-1707 and possibly post-Stuart Unions and/or separations (Northern Ireland separation from Ireland, etc). Neustriano 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Barry has alleged that there was no such thing as a "Union of England and Scotland Act 1603", but that's not what the UK government says. It happened upon the accession of King James, to mark the Union of the Crowns. That is to say, it was the official Union of the Crowns as noted in the reign of James. I'm not going about making this stuff up. I collect previously researched info; I don't develop it. Neustriano 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That was an act of the English Parliament it is always referred to as the Union of the Crowns and should be named as such in the template --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1801 Ireland Flag

There seems to be some disagreement over the use of the flag of Ireland in the 1801 Act of Union. My suggestion is using the St Patrick's Saltire in preference to the Leinster/Harp/Republic of Ireland President's flag because it gives a clear indication of how/why the Union Flag was changed. It's been claimed that evidence for its usage before 1801 is scant and I accept its use must have been limited at best, but it seems that in addition to illustrating the change to the Union Flag it also has no less official usage than this harp flag.

It was used as the basis for the Order of St Patrick in 1783, which was created in recognition of Ireland's "enhanced constitutional status"
Other uses have been recorded, including in flag books dating up to 100 years previously (Neptune Francois, 1693)
Even if it was only created to be incorporated into the Union Jack (which is disputed and I'm not of the mind that it was) it was created for this purpose so legally it makes more sense
The harp seems to have been used more as a seal or coat of arms than a flag.
The harp is the flag of the President of (the Republic of) Ireland (the modern state) and is therefore ambiguous.

I await your comments. -- beano (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The harp (on blue, not green) was the only official symbol of the Kingdom of Ireland. It was a coat of arms, not a flag, displaying arms as a banner is no big deal, but if confusion exists between the presidential standard and the arms then it can be made square. The harp on green was used as a naval jack by the Kingdom of Ireland and may have had official status as such.

Use of the saltire is scant, but certainly is appears here and there (my own theory is that it is of Norman origin - compare with the flag of (Norman) Jersey). It definately enjoyed no official status, and was not popularly flown by anyone. In 1783 it was not even recognisable by commentators as a symbol of Ireland. I've never seen any evidience for its use between 1783 and 1801 as a "flag of Ireland". It would be a great leap for it to go from obsurity, to use on the badge of an order of chivalry, to use as the flag of a country the in space of a mere 18 years!

The only non-offical symbol to capture imagination at the time was shamrock - and in fact it appears that it was during the period of the Kingdom of Ireland (esp. early 18th century) that shamrock became associated with Ireland.

An investigation in the early 1800's by UK officials for what was the flag of Ireland led to the conclusion that Ireland had no flag before the Union Flag (I'll see if I can find the reference for this).

With respect to the Union Flag - and 'commonness' of the saltire - there are two comparable flags that I illuminating. One is the earlier Commonwealth Flag. which (during the Kingom of Ireland) uses the harp to integrate Ireland into a flag with England. Ther other is directly comparable with the 1801 Union Flag: the Protectorate Jack also from during the Kingdom of Ireland, uses the 1707 Union Flag (half a century before the 1707 union) with the harp superimposed to represent England, Scotland and Ireland. No saltire in either.

Conclusion: use of the saltire to represent the Kingdom of Ireland is retrospective based on its use in the 1801 Union Flag. The only official symbol of the Kingdom of Ireland is the harp on blue. This was the commonly recognisable symbol at the time. We are not here to make stuff up. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this standpoint. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can't say I'm entirely happy with the situation, but it hardly seems worth arguing about. beano (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Lordship of Ireland flag)

(cont.) A fair and level-headed man as always, Beano.

I just seen that the Harp is used for the Lordship of Ireland. I think that I did this, but this is scatty - the Harp is recorded as the arms of the "King of Ireland" ("le Roi d'Irlande") in 1280, but the 1542 act is affects the Lordship of Ireland. A commission by Edward IV found "Azure, three crowns Or, bordure Argent" (the modern-day arms of Munster with a white border) to be the arms of the Lordship. I'll change this. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Ireland Act

I've replaced the flag of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with the Flag of Northern Ireland for the Government of Ireland Act. Since no new state was created or merged with the UK, I lean towards the opinion that only the UK flag should be shown (as with the Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act). The reason for changing this to the Northern Ireland flag is because the major consequence of the 1920 act was the creation of Northern Ireland. It's consequence in the south were overtaken by the Anglo–Irish Treaty. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution and title

If the template includes the Government of Ireland Act and the Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act then should it not also include the following?

Comments? Also the title is a little off (and long-winded) at present IMHO. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support inclusion of the devoultion acts and re-working of the title especially since the UK was only formed in 1707 something like Template:Irish constitutions would be good. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually starting to think it's getting a bit unwieldy with all these new ones. Also, the acts after 1801 don't actually relate to the formation of the United Kingdom (with the possible exception of the Government of Ireland Act), but refer more to its evolution or changes to its constitution. Would it be worth having a second template dealing with this? beano (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laudabiliter

I added Laudabiliter (an obvious oversight). Choice of the Harp as symbol is because this was recorded as the arms of the Kings of Ireland. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Perth

I've added the Treaty of Perth, which brought the Hebrides and Caithness into what is at present the UK; should be a further link for the pledging of Orkney and Shetland, but can't immediately see a good link for that. ariwara (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this not be more the formation of Scotland, rather than the formation of the United Kingdom? That these islands were once a part of Norway and were later transferred to Scotland had no bearing on the formation of the United Kingdom. If we start including things like this then we'll end up with treaties for every little land exchange e.g. imagine the isle of Man popping in and out between Wales (Britons), then Ireland, then Noway, then Scotland, then England, then on it's own. None of which is relevant to how the UK came to be formed. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this removal, though I am happy to accept that there have to be some limits in time and importance on items listed here as Sony-youth says. This template is in essence a listing of the significant legislative acts, and treaties, which led to the UK having sovereignty over the landmass it now occupies. From a historical point of view, a natural beginning is the eleventh century, when the two states which came together in 1707 to establish the United Kingdom (Mark I) were well-established. If however one then asks the question 'how did the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, and the remainder of the current UK, come to be one state' , it is necessary not only to consider the acquisition of Wales by England, and the long relationship between England and Ireland which led to the 1800 Union and the UK Mark II, but also the acquisition of the outlying parts of the archipelago. I fully accept that, from a narrowly English perspective, what happens outwith England/UK may be of little interest; but the genesis of the UK is a union of two historically-independent and equal kingdoms: the assertion/acquisition of sovereignty by a UK forebear in a part of the landmass is important whichever forebear was involved. That is why the Statute of Rhuddlan is (rightly) included.

From an 'importance' point of view, the Treaty of Perth remains historically significant in a way in which such passing moments in Anglo-Irish history as the Laudabiliter Bull are, with all possible respect, not.

Let us also consider that, while this template has now extended beyond the ultimate 'formation' of the UK in 1800 to the C20 statutes and treaties which affect that formation in one way or another, the Irish Free State was most definitely not part of that history after 1922; the Parliamentary history since then, such as the declaration of the Republic and its recognition by the UK in 1948, are not: they are part of the history of an independent state. On that basis, I have also reverted the inclusion of the 1948 Act.

Discussion please, if you continue to disagree; not edit war. ariwara (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not the importance or otherwise of the Treaty of Perth, but that it has nothing to do with the formation of the UK (and certainly nothing to do with "Personal and legislative unions"). You seem content to believe that my argument is from a "narrowly English perspective" when in fact a look at my user page will reveal that I'm an Irish nationalist.

I don't believe that Perth belongs here because it relates to the formation of Scotland, not to the formation of the UK. While it's entirely possible to take the "long view" on these things, if we are to discuss the formation of Scotland then we have to discuss the formation of all of the other constituent countries, and some other jurisdictions that are not constituents of the UK. This is long, pointless and eventually unhelpful.

On other things, it's very strange that you would call the papal bull that transferred jurisdiction over Ireland onto the English crown as a "passing moment": almost a millennium years later, they're still here! With regard to the 1948 act, it's relevancy is indicated by the title of the section i.e. "Personal and legislative unions". The 1948 act ended the 850-year personal union between Ireland and England in the 26 counties that was started by Laudabiliter. The argument that it is "part of the history of an independent state" is aside the point, so too were Laudabiliter, the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Laws in Wales Acts, the Crown of Ireland Act, the Union of the Crowns, and even your baby, the Treaty of Perth. In fact, it did not relat just to the history of the Republic of Ireland as, for the first time since 1801, it made the 26 counties a "foreign country" to the UK. The consequence of the act were profound for the UK as the tangled history between the UK and the Republic required emergency legislation to meet it (though it was accepted gracefully, in contrast to how the act itself came about in Ireland). Remember, that the title of the monarch as set-out in 1927 was King of Great Britain and King of Ireland separately. The passing of the RoI act in the 26 counties required clarification on the position of Northern Ireland as being within the UK (the 1920 act had it within a virtually independent "Ireland" within the UK that no longer could be said to exist). In doing so the UK set-out for the fist time time the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as we know it today and set the need for a 50% majority in favor of a united Ireland were that position ever to change. A bit more relevant than the Treat of Pert, eh? --sony-youth^pléigh 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note: shortage of time. (1) My apologies for the assumption that your edit was from a 'narrowly English' perspective; an assumption too readily made when dealing with excisions of Scots references. (2) My reference to Laudabiliter as of passing importance was because it seems to me to have only historical significance as creating a veneer of legality for the English supremacy in Ireland (much as did the papal bull of 18 March 1291 in the case of Scotland), which ceased to be relied on from 1542; thus long before any United Kingdom. But I can see that theologically it may have continuing importance; I cannot judge that. (3) The Treaty of Perth is certainly part of the formation of the Scottish state, as Rhuddlan was of the English state. But, rephrasing the question which I think this template seeks to answer 'how did the current United Kingdom come to be the United Kingdom' , it is also part of the history of the formation of the UK; absent that treaty, and with no further treaty, some ten per cent of the UK's land area would not now be part of the UK. (4) I take your point on the Republic of Ireland Act and have reinstated it; but I have to say that it seems anomalous that the independent act of a foreign and independent state should be in this template, and I wonder if the link should not rather be to the Ireland Act 1949.

There is, as with other templates of this kind, a tension as to what is included. The formation of the UK might be taken to require links only to the acts of 1707 and 1800; the remainder of its first part (i.e. to 1800) deals with (a) matters relevant to the designation or status of monarchs (rather than the state) and/or (b) the extension of the precursor states of 1707 over the British and Irish landmass. This wider approach seems a more useful one; the reader seeking to know how the United Kingdom comes to be as it is is as likely to be interested in one aspect as another.

Conclusion: leave in both the Treaty of Perth and the 1948 Act. ariwara (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariwara, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think you're quite right. With regard to the Treaty of Perth, I might well be suffering from a "narrow perspective" on some kind: what they call in Northern Ireland political theory a blindness to the "map image" of these islands, which is of course an important part of understanding the UK. Regards your comment re: which Republic of Ireland Act articles to link to, I would say that the 'initiating event' (if you get what I mean) should be linked to, but I would also say that the two articles should be merged as they cover the same topic from the point of view of an encyclopedia. There's nothing to be gained from splitting the two up, and in fact it's unnatural and clumsy from the point of view of a reader. Would you be okay for a merge of the Republic of Ireland Act and Republic of Ireland Act 1949 articles?

Final note re: Laudabiliter, I wasn't aware of a similar bull for Scotland (do you have a link?). Laudabiliter may have gone the same way but for the fact that it "authorized" the Norman Invasion. Even then it may well have ended there but for a series of unprecedented events that followed, that, contrary to every good intention on both English and Gaelic sides to avoid that scenario, put ultimate authority in Ireland into personal union with the English crown i.e. Ireland wound up having no effective crown of it's own, and the title of Lord of Ireland fell by accident onto the King of England, both of which were against everyone's wishes. Thus the mess began. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the flag of Norway historically accurate.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.104.62 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could go for the royal flag, witch is older and perhaps borderline accurate: Image:Norwegian Royal Standard flag.png. 125.237.69.27 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

I removed the flags; they cluttered the list, but, more importantly, many were anachronistic (e.g. the Welsh one, created in 1952 and the 19th century Norwegian one being used for medieval treaties). There was also a 'potential Northern Ireland flag' being used (whatever that means), and the flag of the President of Ireland was used to represent a 12th century treaty. The obsession with sticking flags onto everything was here triumphing over historical accuracy. Cop 663 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's current use is as the standard of the President of Ireland. It's 12th century use was as the standard of the King of Ireland. I had preferred the previous version, inaccurate as it was in parts, because it served as a graphic aid. Any ideas for a new method to graphically support the information (imporves readability, aids several classes of disabled users esp. dyslexic readers, etc.)? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me old-fashioned, but I think words are better. England-Ireland is more readable than "

-

". Any dyslexic person who is unable to read the word "Ireland" won't be using Wikipedia anyway. Flags are only useful as visual aids if they're recognizable; I doubt the King of Ireland's flag is recognizable to the average reader, and made-up flags certainly aren't, whereas the word "Ireland" is. Cop 663 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely with both the sentiment and the rationale of your argument. ~~(In fact, I find your dismissive attitude to other users quite disgusting, and could think of far more colourful things to call you than "old fashioned".)~~ The benefit of the flags for readability is not solely, or even in the main, in the information they conveyed, but in the way that they break up text into orderly pieces and allow it to be consumed through multiple modalities.

I've bullet pointed the list in their absence, but much of the benefit that the flags offered is still missing. The flags allowed bullet pointing to be done gracefully, exploiting their double role as bullet markers (the really important part) as well as conveying distinctiveness and contextual information to each item through a complimentary modality, which are now missing.

See here for an overview of design techniques to being in mind for dyslexic users. To get an appreciation for how disabled users use the internet (which I think you really need to do), see here. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being dismissive, but I disagree that the flags were graceful (either in terms of visual appearance or of historical appropriateness). The bullet-pointing looks much better. Perhaps experimenting with colour-coding might achieve the additional results you're aiming for, e.g.

Laudabiliter, 1155 (England-Ireland)

Or maybe structured bullet points:

Or maybe 'framing' the treaties:

England - Laudabiliter - Ireland
Scotland - Treaty of Perth - Norway

With a bit of work, each of these would have the advantage of simultaneously conveying the identity of the nations involved clearly in words, while also offering a visual structure that some readers might find helpful. Cop 663 (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong views on the issue, but there are guidelines at WP:MOSFLAG which may give some pointers here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps "Accompany flags with country names" is the most appropriate here. Cop 663 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of formation of the United Kingdom?

After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this template

This template is obviously mis-titled given that few of the laws it lists are in fact "personal [or] legislative unions of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom". Even if a better title could be found, I'm still not sure what the logic of including either the Statute of Westminster 1931 or the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Neither of these Acts affected, in any way, the Constitutional position of the UK, but rather those of Commonwealth realms. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for neglecting to reply here earlier. I've replied on the TfD page. --RA (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badge

I have removed the badge depicting England, Scotland and Ireland. It is inappropriate to include articles on Wales prior to its annexation to the Kingdom of England, without referencing its emblem. Daicaregos (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I add some Leeks will it be okay then? Sodacan (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that would be appropriate. Doesn't the image denotes floral emblems? The image depicts emblems of the countries comprising the UK. Wales should be represented. Daicaregos (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally not, you know the usually 'Wales is not a Kingdom but Principality' line. But I would be very happy to make another which is representative of all the countries. Sodacan (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. By the way, Wales is a country, not a principality. Was your contention that as 'Wales is not a Kingdom but Principality' it did not 'deserve' to be represented? Daicaregos (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo, I was quoting others. I love Wales! and will be glad to create an image which incorporate all the countries. The existing image is based on a traditional design which has been in used by the British Monarchy since 1603, it certainly does not represent the current situation. Sodacan (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, me too. The traditional image to which you refer would be appropriate to depict events involving the creation of the UK. i.e. that it was formed by the kingdoms of England and Scotland. But some of the uses of this template relate to events prior to Wales' annexation (e.g. the Statute of Rhuddlan, 1284) when Wales existed in its own right, albeit under the control of the king of England. And some relate to the countries as they exist today. Few would contend that Wales is part of England now and not a country itself. I look forward to seeing your work. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The badge depicting England, Scotland and Ireland has been reinstated. the template includes two Government of Wales Acts. Unless the contention is that Wales is not a country, it should be included on the badge. Daicaregos (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just so much has been deleted, I guessed it was alright. Sodacan (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is entitled "Documents relevant to personal and legislative unions of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom". As Wales is one of the countries that constitutes the United Kingdom, it should be included when those countries are depicted. Daicaregos (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I be so bold as to suggest drawing and uploading something like the emblems on File:Coronation Crown 1953 reverse.jpg and/or File:English Sixpence 1958.jpg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.102.54 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wales is not one of the emblems depicted on File:Coronation Crown 1953 reverse.jpg. It is included on the File:English Sixpence 1958.jpg though. Daicaregos (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The leek is on the bottom of the Crown coin, but whichever, I just thought they might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.102.54 (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I was looking only at the shields. Sorry. Daicaregos (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken formatting

Something about this template as of 2019-08-07 is breaking Constitution of the United Kingdom. It appears that the template somehow begins its right-side box without ending it, causing the entirety of the Constitution of the United Kingdom article to stay within this box instead. --Closeapple (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]