SEB PSA: The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained.

This YouTube video by C.G.P. Grey attempts to clear up all the confusion between what is the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England. Terms that many people, yours truly included, often use interchangeably much to the alternating consternation/amusement of the folks who actually live there.

Check it:

After watching that all I can say is it’s no fucking wonder I get it wrong all the damned time.

3 thoughts on “SEB PSA: The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained.

  1. You know if George Washington had surrendered to Lord Cornwallis, we would be speaking English today in these colonies.



  2. NOT a theocracy. The fact that the Head of State is also the head of the established religeon does not mean the Church rules (even theoretically). It would be like saying the US has a military government because of who the C In C of the armed forces is. You need to consider WHY the Head of State and Head of the Church are the same person. In the Middle ages clergy owed their allegence to the Pope, not the monarch of the country. A certain fat person wanted this changed.

    What is interesting is the relationship of the Crown to public governance. For instance – About 12 years ago the Queen started paying tax. This is ridiculous – the Queen can not pay tax, no more than you can pay yourself an allowance.

    A monarchy has two sources of income – the normal one from being a landlord common to any land owner plus investments etc, and a levy on the population, called tax. A monarch is also liable for all public spending, be it Roads, defensive buildings, employing state workers, arms etc. Anybody paid by the national public purse is a ‘crown employee’ – (as I am). Their may be local governance – councils etc, but they receive most of their income from the crown, although their workers are NOT crown employees: the money is a grant from the crown to local mayors, Lord Lieutenants (pronounced correctly in this case) etc.

    Now obviously one person is not rich enough to run all the state spending, no matter how much their private income – especially in times of war. This is why they supplement it with tax. Theoretically if the Queen fancied a trip to Disneyland, she could take it out of the Exchequer, but the agreement is there is a distict line between her rent money and het tax money, and she has agreed to put some her rent money in with the tax money.

    Some American sneer at me and tell me I’m not free because I’m a subject of a monarch, and she could decide to impose all sorts of rules and I can’t vote her out. Try to protest they have this wrong and merely sneer that she is a monarch.

    The relationship between the Crown and Parliament is like that between the Patrician of Anhk Morpork and the Unseen University. Parliament will do what ever the Crown commands, on the understanding the Crown won’t command anything that Parliament hasn’t approved first. (What would happen if POTUS rocked up on a battlefield and said “As C in C…”?)

    You may also like to reflect on the fate of Kings who have pissed off Parliament. While the in the US the Senate and Congress have twisted harridans who like to make posturing noises about armed revolution. In the UK Parliament actually does remove the Head of State (although since 1650 they haven’t resorted to fire arms)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.