Talk:Acts of Union 1800

message: I edited the section that was marked with an NPOV.  Is it still unsatisfactory?  --TD 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by TD

message: Is it not appropriate to mention the location where the Act was signed, namely Derrymore House, Bessbrook, Northern Ireland?  And would it not also be appropriate to include a photograph of the building and location in question? I can edit and include these components if deemed necessary. Thanks,c-bro 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Feel free to put in that sort of information. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing Location 

message: Can someone explain what the sentence "The Act was exhaulted by both the British and Irish parliaments" means? --Jfruh (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that I don't even know what "exalted" would mean in this context.  Is it some kind of technical term for the passage of a law? --Jfruh (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "exhaulted"? 

message: I've temporarily removed the following from the text:
The act received the royal assent on 1 August 1800.
Without specifying whether this the date of the British or the Irish Act, it's not really very useful information.  Silverhelm 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal assent 

message: 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) 23:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of formation of the United Kingdom? 

message: why is not even in one sentance the rebellion metioned which happened 2 years before the act and is a response of it???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.156.77 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Some of the sources i the article need a good lookm at.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I'm not sure what this line means: "When the union was finally passed in 1800, the British drove the process right through the war of 1812."  Is it British English, using a term of art Americans aren't familiar with?  Considering the Union was created in 1800/1801, the context of this sentence is not apparent.  I hope someone with knowledge of the events can clarify this.  Jnmwiki (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the 1812 part is vandalism. Per this diff, the previous version was "When the union was finally passed in 1800, the British drove the process." The IP added "right throw the war of 1812", which makes little sense even if one assumes good faith. Trolling through the history can often help clear things up, a little anyway. - BilCat (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of 1812 

message: moved. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Act of Union 1800 → Acts of Union 1800 — There was more than one act involved. The plural "Acts" is clearly the correct name, it even says so in the first sentence on the page. McLerristarr (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: <snip> Royal succession was broken when Henry VIII's heir died, and the entire subsequent history of the British monarchy is based on a series of illegitimate successions. There was no direct line of primogeniture succession since Henry VIII. The Tudors are themselves usurpers of the ancient Plantagenets. Queen Anne did not have issue. Queen Victoria's father was not king. The line of succession was numerously broken, and primogeniture was not remotely maintained. The "personal union" fiction is an unnecessary historical consideration.  </snip>
I've snipped the above out of the article - if you want to rant about the legitimacy or otherwise of the British monarchy there are articles on them to do that! Also inheritance of title can be through other means than direct succession. The personal union is a legal fact, and the most obvious break - the Civil wars and Commonwealth followed by the "Glorious" revolution, which to some extent sets up the modern Irish divide - didn't even rate a mention in the above. Also Victoria came to the throne some 30 years after the Union. -Grible (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acts of Union 1800. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011192652/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0029/sched1.html to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0029/sched1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From Oireachtas:
:In 1800 the Irish Parliament abolished itself when, after widespread bribery of members, it adopted the Act of 
Union, which came into effect from 1 January 1801.
I added the cn. 
If true and referenced, it should be in this article.
--Error (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bribery 

message: The coat of arms of the Kingdom of Ireland used here is a work of artistic license (fictional). Ireland never had its own royal arms per se. There was a coat of arms issued under James I but it was rarely used. The arms used were the same as in England and Wales. Scotland did have its own version. Ireland did have its own heraldic badge and flags, but that is not the same thing. --IACOBVS (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Coat of Arms 

message: The "name" section says:
"Two acts were passed in 1800 with the same long title: An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. The short title of the act of the British Parliament is Union with Ireland Act 1800, assigned by the Short Titles Act 1896. The short title of the act of the Irish Parliament is Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, assigned by a 1951 act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and hence not effective in the Republic of Ireland, where it was referred to by its long title when repealed in 1962."
It is not clear to me what happened ... this is what I understand:
* The acts passed in 1800 with a long title.
* The name of the act was shortened by the British Parliament in 1896.
* The Northern Ireland Parliament shortened the name of the act in 1951.
* The name of the act was never shortened in the Republic of Ireland so it stayed in its long form until 1962 when it was repealed.
1. Is my understanding correct?
2. Considering the Irish Free State came about in 1922, why did it take 40 years for repealing the act in Ireland?
ICE77 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A short title is a legally-valid alternative title; it does not replace the original. The Irish state got around to repealing this legislation in a tidying-up exercise. Functionally the Acts were largely undone in the process of Irish independence. SeoR (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and repealing