Talk:British North America

message: How is it that the term "British North America" was first used in 1783, but then the list of members is from 1763? - grubber 04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello grubber, you are correct.  The proper usage for the term the British Colonies in North America, is British America and the British West Indies for the time period prior to 1783.  Similarly, the proper usage is the term British Colonies in North America is  British North America  and the British West Indies for the time period after 1783. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk • contribs) 05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desrepancy in dates 

message: It's not true that "British North America" is only used to describe the British colonies after 1783. A Google Book Search suggests to me that historians use the terms "British North America" and "British America" interchangeably. A couple titles of major academic works show how "British North America" is used to describe the British colonies in North America before 1783, such as Fred Anderson's Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754–1766, or Bernard Bailyn's The Peopling of British North America. The claim made in this article that there is or was a "formal" distinction between British America and British North America has never been sourced, and may in fact be an Wikipedia invention. Can anyone confirm or deny? —Kevin Myers 19:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously there's a bit of fluidity to the term "British North America".  .  The article on "New France" seems to include reference to anything that was ever claimed by France and has a nice map to go along with it showing the maximum extent of French control (although the territories wouldn't have all been under simultaneous de facto control.)  I think we need to figure out what the 'broad term' for British North American possessions was (or the one(s) most commonly used; and then there may need to be some explanation that after the Revolution the term "British North America" came to refer  to the colonies that did not revolt or were founded after the Revolution; and then decide what to do with the British Columbian bits.  The article at present doesn't mention anything about the establishment of the Pacific coast colonies of Vancouver Island (1849) or British Columbia (1858)  prior to Confederation.  As for maps, I think it would be more helpful to have a pre Revolution map and another 1867 map; these would represent high water marks of the 'First' and 'Second' British North American empies.Corlyon (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree in the long run it would probably be a good thing to have several maps showing the evolution of BNA. It would help illustrat it a litte. I'd also agree it is quite fluid - it often seems to be used to mean whatever the author wants it to (I've seen some references that don't count the West Indies, and some that do). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[British America]] vs. [[British North America]] 

message: British North America existed as a legal title only during the era when their was a position called the Governor General of British North America, however that title was very inconsistanly used.  From 1765 to 1840 it was usually the same person as the Governor of Quebec or Lieutenant Governor of Lower Canada.  However some GGs seem to have appointed local lieutenants for Lower Canada.  James Kempt, perhaps?  His article is vauge.  From 1841 to 1866 the Governor General's title was changed to "of the Canadas" or "of Canada", and he was responsible for that entire colony with any deputies for the eastern or western halves (Geroge Aurthur being a short-term exception).  After 1867 no one was ever considered to be administering a place called "British North America".
The term British North America remained as a usfull descriptor, however.  This is why it was used as the title of Canada's first constitution the BNA Act (1867), and the various amenments to it, which were alled called "British North America Acts".  This made sense because Canada was still decidedly British legally and in cultural terms.  However the name of the state they created was the Dominion of Canada.  Britain also retained possetions in North America that only later joined Canada:  NWT (1869), BC (1871), PEI (1873), British Arctic Territories (1880), and Newfoundland (1949), so BNA could be applied to them.
This article should probably not limit itself to the legal usage of the term because the other use (cultural/geographical) was so prevalent and so strong.  I proposed re-purposing the article into a page that discussion the various uses of the term, rather than a copy or fork of Canada under British Imperial control, British colonization of the Americas, or the recently created British America (which itself seems to mostly duplicate Thirteen Colonies).--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BNA as legal title vs. BNA as historical categorization 

message: The definition is a little off: Bermuda is also north of Mexico, but is not listed here.--Cúchullain t/c 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really in North America either, is it? - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it was, geographically and, for the time, politically speaking. It was was administered as one of Britain's colonial possessions in the Americas (as opposed, say, to Britain itself or even its possessions in Europe).--Cúchullain t/c 13:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Bermuda article claims it's had some form of self-government since 1620, which wouldn't connect it to the mainlad for most of the British occupation of North America. Of course this could just be local bragging about thisng that aren't really true! - BilCat (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about Bermuda, but the Bahamas and Jamaica et al. wanted to join Confederation but were refused.Skookum1 (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: North of Mexico

message: It might be that I'm missing something but why are the only two monarchs in the Info box George III and George V? Was there a 90 year gap when British North America Didn't exist? if no the Box should read Monarchs and Include George IV, Victoria and Edward the VII, If yes then could someone specifically state and source this near the top of the article? Also the top of the Info box says it existed from 1783 until 1907 so surely the Monarchs from 1783 until George III should be there and George V shouldn't be there at all?(Morcus (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kings in the Info Box. 

message: the problem with this is that, if British North America included Rupert's Land and the Columbia District, then the HBC flag should definitely be shown as well...and really the RN's too, because of Esquimalt.  The Red Ensign did not fly over the British Pacific Northwest, nor over British Columbia, until 1871 when it joined Canada.  BC's flag was the Union Jack - which IMO should be the only flag here.Skookum1 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Ensign in infobox

message: Are the dates connected to the flags in the info-box accurate? If so, why and how did the it come to pass that the British American areas where the Empire was able to defeat the revolutuon and retain after the peace treaty, adopted a slightly altered but incredibly prescient ensign featuring in its canton the flag of Great Britain defaced with St Patricks's Cross a full 18-years before the rest of the Empire would adopt it after the founding of the United Kingdom. I am assuming this is a graphical typo, or quite possibly I maybe wrong due to my own historical ignorance and the redesigned 1783 ensign with a canton featuring a design similar to the 1801 UK Jack is historically accurate. Or perhaps the 1780s was a time when "The Great White North" was just very "fashion forward" when it came to vexillology. -- 99.207.29.228 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the infobox has room for only one flag, so we have to pick one. There are three obvious ways to choose: (1) the first flag (2) the last flag (3) the flag used for the longest period. Both (2) and (3) point to using a flag with St Patrick's cross. But I'm not convinced that the Red Ensign is the best choice; probably the Union Jack is more appropriate. Indefatigable (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th Century Union Jack in post-revoutionary British Imperial America (proto-Canada?) before 1801? 

message: My reference to the US as a successor state was removed from the infobox with the edit summary "not consistent with the artticle". Can someone give further explanation, because the second paragraph of the article seems to directly say that it includes the thirteen colonies of the US. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As the first paragraph clearly states the term "British North America" was not in use prior to 1783, obviously by the time the United States had already broken away from the British Empire and therefore is not included in this category. The term British North America refers to the British colonies that subsequently became Canada. --Mediatech492 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it's written now, it sounds like the terms "British North America" and "colonies and territories of the British Empire in continental North America" are synonyms for the same entity, and that entity didn't acquire its name until partway through its life. If BNA is more specific than the later term, and expressly does not include the US (or the West Indies), then the first two paragraphs need a re-write. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US as successor state 

message: I'm confused by the inclusion in the infobox of "Today part of Canada and Commonwealth of Nations". First, in most articles that section is a list of sovereign states that today control the land once occupied by the former country, not a list of intergovernmental organizations. Second, it seems redundant unless there is some part of British North America that is today not part of Canada but is part of the Commonwealth. Third, if we are going to include international organizations in that field, why only the Commonwealth: why not Organization of American States, NATO, or the Francophonie? Sure, Canada's membership in the Commonwealth is more directly a consequence of formally being British North America, but you can't say that its membership in those other organizations is completely unrelated to its 19th Century history. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth of Nations

message: "Canada under British rule (1763-1867) has grown from being about "Canada" to covering BC and Newfoundland et al........which were not part of the name "Canada" until after 1871 and 1949 respectively.....so the content/context is the same; if it's going to be about all of what's now Canada, it should have the BNA title, no? Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  And I rarely agree with Skookum, so we should run with this. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Skookum1 has been indefinitely blocked since mid-2015, and so is no longer allowed to participate in discussions or a merge. If you want to make some suggestions on how best to accomplish such a merge, I'll probably support it. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge discussion 

message: Historians strongly prefer to use "Britain" or "Great Britain." for example the newest history of WWI is  Great Britain's Great War (2014)  by Jeremy Paxman. also Matthews, A study in trade-cycle history: economic fluctuations in Great Britain 1833-1842 (Cambridge University Press, 2011); Knowles, The Industrial & Commercial Revolutions in Great Britain During the Nineteenth Century (Routledge, 2013); Long and Ferriea. "Intergenerational occupational mobility in Great Britain and the United States since 1850." The American Economic Review 103.4 (2013): 1109-1137; McQueen, A Social History of Company Law: Great Britain and the Australian Colonies 1854–1920 (Ashgate 2013); Luedtke,  "As Far as the Laws of Great Britain Permit: The Effect of British Imperialism on French Canada, and Its Effect on the American Revolution." (PhD 2013); Colley, Captives: Britain, Empire and the World 1600-1850 (2010); Ferguson, Empire: How Britain made the modern world (2012). Rjensen (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is referring to two states. It's impossible to distinguish between the two British states using colloquialisms, because the two British states both have the same colloquialisms. To clarify, Great Britain is a state that existed from 1707 to 1800. The United Kingdom is a state that has existed since 1801. Both the state of Great Britain and the United Kingdom are referred to as Britain and the British state. The United Kingdom is also occasionally referred to as Great Britain. hence you could ague this term refers to both British states, however that would make it impossible in this instance to distinguish between them. Additionally, referring to British North America as colonies of Great Britain after 1801 is technically incorrect. Irish members of the UK parliament voted on legislations concerning the colonies, and therefore after 1801, they were colonies of Great Britain and Ireland, not just Great Britain. In the United States, even American politicians today refer to Great Britain and Northern Ireland as simply Great Britain, which many over here find offensive. Additionally, in historical texts, many authors refer to the United Kingdom as England, Britain, and Great Britain, as at one time, most people in England saw these terms as synonymous. That is no longer the case. I could go on explaining the complex reasons why these terms are used so carelessly, but I can't be bothered. The issue is complex, and you're offending many Irish people by referring the the United Kingdom as Great Britain. Even Britain is contentious, although acceptable in British politics. I don't have the time to have a major discussion on this, but I could pretty easily inform the Irish Wikipedia community who would quickly assure you that referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as Great Britain is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The reasons why Britain is acceptable in referring to the United Kingdom, and Great Britain is not is not exactly clear, but it's how it is. British and Americans historians don't usually take into consideration that Great Britain will offend Irish people, but I assure you it does. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 16:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: there never was a country named "United Kingdom" -- it's a shorthand to the long title that for pre-1945 non-historians use and the great majority of historians avoid.  Our job is to go with the RS ie the historians. The standard scholarly journal is Irish Historical Studies Which covers both Ireland and Northern Ireland and has dozens of articles By established scholars that use the term "Great Britain."  such as  Brahmins and carnivores: the Irish historian in Great Britain Irish Historical Studies May 1987. The index of abstracts shows there are 40 articles that use "Great Britain"  Compared to 18 that use "United Kingdom."  Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The state was official called "United Kingdom" at the time, so that's what goes in the infobox. This follows the practice of every other article's infobox. We use official names not common names. As for the article body, I don't see what is wrong with using the term "Britain" since it can refer to both states and is used in sources. As a country, Britain has existed since 1707. Just like France has existed as a country through the  countless reformations of the French state. Rob984 (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: no country or state was ever named "United Kingdom" -- that's an unofficial abbreviation for the full name--that changed several times. The great majority of historians prefer "Great Britain-- a name that is also an abbreviation. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historians do not call it United Kingdom 

message: The article states, "In 1775, on the eve of the American Revolution, the British Empire included 20 territories in the Western Hemisphere northeast of New Spain."  Bermuda, not listed, was also a British territory in the Western Hemisphere northeast of New Spain, being 400 miles off the coast of North Carolina. The rebellious 13 made an overture to Bermuda to join them in the American Revolution. The Wikipedia article for Bermuda states, "The island was administered as an extension of Virginia by the [Virginia] Company until 1614. Its spin-off, the Somers Isles Company, took over in 1615 and managed the colony until 1684. At that time, the company's charter was revoked, and the English Crown took over administration. The islands became a British colony following the 1707 unification of the parliaments of Scotland and England, which created the Kingdom of Great Britain." Jeff in CA (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bermuda 

message: It doesn’t seem like there are many sources and references for this page. The 2 documents that are listed are good, but there could more credible sources.Deezus928 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Sources

message: ;   Following up on the recent changes to the description of London in the infobox - the reason I changed it from "England" to "United Kingdom" is that for the period of British North America covered by the article, England was not a sovereign state.  It was a sub-unit of the United Kingdom.  Since the name of the nation that controlled British North America was the United Kingdom, London's location should be in the UK.  It was the Parliament of the UK, collectively composed of MPs from England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland which had the ultimate legislative power over British North America.  London is mentioned as the capital of the UK, not just a city in England. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: England has always been a correct geographical name for where London is located. "United Kingdom" is an informal shortened name that historians generally avoid for this period. Rjensen (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted ‘London, United Kingdom’ because it links to the post-1922 state which came after the period covered in this article, and because it is more concise to use ‘London, England’, rather than having ‘London, Kingdom of Great Britain (1783-1800), London, United Kingdom of GB and Ireland (1801-1907)’ when those names are already covered by the ‘status’ section of the infobox. EdwardUK (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: London

message: Since we have this article covering the area diluting the time in question, I think it would be best if we also placed people in categories using this name, and placed sub-categories for sub-units under this entity in the category for this entity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should use this as the Category name for people from it