"Irish Republic" and the BBC - What is their problem?

stovelid

DanDan6592 wrote: »

No Irish.

...No blacks, no dogs?

Those dirty Brits.

ejmaztec

Might as well change the name to Vagina, because we're pretty much fucked.

p1akuw47h5r3it

stovelid wrote: »

...No blacks, no dogs?

Those dirty Brits.

:D:D

I'll ****ing edit it so:pac:

Dudess

RaverRo808 wrote: »

The BBC make my blood boil with thier really condesending 'Republic of Ireland',and their 'LondonDerry' and 'the United Kingdom of England,Wales,Scotland and Northern Ireland',they still think of us as a puppet of Britain,sure when Samantha Mumba was big,she was credited as being the fastest selling artist from Britain,FFS they wont even let us have Samantha Mumba,jesus I hate them,lol

Who do you hate? The Brits or the BBC?

Read this carefully: THEY'RE NOT OUT TO GET US - IN FACT THEY DON'T GIVE A SH1T ABOUT US.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Do you have some sort of radar software installed on your computer to draw you to these threads, Dudess?

Don't get me wrong, it's good to see you spray your own stream of common sense all over the place but, jesus, it's like you can smell 'em or something.

Gummy Panda

I've heard TDs refer to the Republic of Ireland as the Irish Republic on the radio. Maybe they picked it up from them.

I think the Irish Republic sounds okay.

ejmaztec

Axl Beautiful Driveway wrote: »

Do you have some sort of radar software installed on your computer to draw you to these threads, Dudess?

Don't get me wrong, it's good to see you spray your own stream of common sense all over the place but, jesus, it's like you can smell 'em or something.

She's got a paranoia alarm in the bat-cave.

carlop

If it bothers you so much OP then just don't watch the BBC. After all it is a foreign broadcaster, in fact any proud Irishman should immediately disconnect any television channel that is not RTE, TV3, TG4 or Setanta Ireland.

Considering the quality of coverage the BBC provides to a country that doesn't pay a cent towards its licence fee, I'm willing to allow them to call the Republic of Ireland the Irish Republic. I've also generally found the BBC to be one of the most impartial state broadcasters around.

b28

God I hate these threads!

Joey the lips

Who cares!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5PT65I2ny8


We are Irish no matter what and the west brits can go jump!

thethedev

Its very simple, Republic of Ireland takes to long to say and Republic Ireland sounds retarded. So say Irish Republic its a republic and its Irish.
I really wish the whole country would loosen the **** up about stupid **** like this.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why use "Irish Republic" when they could use "Republic of Ireland" and at least be more correct? And indeed 'Ireland' is shorter still, and happens to be the correct official internationally recognised name of this state. But they opt for a longer version. Hmmmm.

When RTÉ start referring to them as Brits and the BBC start referring to us as "Paddies" that might be equivalent. However, RTÉ does not refer to the UK as England or something similar (even though the UK is just an extension of England, but let's not get into that).

OI, get your bleeding hands off our BBC.

Bleedin Irish nick everything, Tesco, Mothercare, even auntie Beeb. Christ you'll all be supporting Man United and watching Corrie next.:D

Maybe, just maybe, calling the place Ireland might confuse people, seeing as the majority of people on this island who the BBC are supposed to target see a big difference between the two countries.

The BBC are the most politically correct company you will find. i read somewhere about the London/Derry thing. Apparantly they use the name alternately and if they call it derry at the start of one news bulletin, they will call it Londonderry at the start of the next and then alternate it.

Methinks the OP needs to build a bridge.....

Alternatively, you could just stop watching British TV?

mike65

Joey the lips wrote: »

Who cares!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5PT65I2ny8


We are Irish no matter what and the west brits can go jump!

Yeah! and so can er Jack Charlton and all those Brits he recruited to play for "Eire"

{insert facepalm pic here}

robinph

...and what about those dastardly French as well:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2009/05/06/01003-20090506ARTFIG00575-le-senat-tcheque-approuve-le-traite-de-lisbonne-.php

They cannot even manage to spell the word correctly and then they have the nerve to stick an "L" and a apostrophe in front of it for some unknown reason as well.

Why does everyone keep on oppressing us like this, it's just not fair?

<runs off to cry in the corner>

Horsefumbler

Rebelheart wrote: »

How illiterate are these people? Really, I do mean that. I am specifically talking about the British Broadcasting Corporation. Why do they keep referring to this state by neither its official name nor its official description? Are they making a political point that I am not aware of? I have never, ever, ever heard or read a BBC report that refers to this state by its correct, internationally recognised name: Ireland. Indeed, they cannot seem to even manage the official description, Republic of Ireland.

Why would the refer to the rubublic of Ireland as Ireland? That wouldn't distinguish it from northern Ireland which is part of the united kingdom sweetheart.

I think you just don't like the brits

Pitseleh

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0510/northviolence.html

"The North" and RTE - what is their problem? :rolleyes: :pac:

robinph

Pitseleh wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0510/northviolence.html

"The North" and RTE - what is their problem? :rolleyes: :pac:

http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0611/cjd.html

"Irish Republic" and RTE - what is their problem? :rolleyes: :pac:

Irish Guitarist

Maybe it's just to save time and to make sure they have less words to read. If they said "Republic of Ireland" they'd have to say an extra word (of) and they'd have to say "Ireland" which is longer than saying "Irish". That may sound stupid but BBC newsreaders seem to have a hard time reading. Ever hear them trying to say "Slobodan Milosevic"? The less words they say the less mistakes they'll make.

b12mearse

There Brits- do you need an explanation?

O'Coonassa

Beanstalk wrote: »

I agree with most of your quote except this. The word Briton refered to a tribe that dwelled in mainland britain prior to the Roman conquest. The word Britannia was used to describe the island on which they were from. Hibernia was used to describe Ireland.

Let's go back, let's go back, let's go way on way back when....

Before the Gaels arrived with their fancy new fangled Q-Celtic we were speaking Briton speak ie: Brythonic P-Celtic.

Pytheas, a Greek fella, made a voyage of exploration around the British Isles around 300BC. He called the islands collectively as αι Βρεττανιαι, usually translated as the Brittanic Isles, although more accurately it is Prettanic meaning 'painted' after the blue wode we all wore on our savage skyclad bodies lol

The peoples of these islands of were called by the name the Πρεττανοι, or Pretani and that's the root of Briton and where the Romans got it from.

O'Coonassa

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why use "Irish Republic" when they could use "Republic of Ireland" and at least be more correct?

Why say "balls" when you can say "testicles" and at least be more correct?

NormanNicetouch

Presumably the British ought to get upset when our media (including RTE and the posh papers) consistently and incorrectly refer to HM as 'the Queen of England'. But they don't. Perhaps they're a bit more grown up than some of us over here.

Elmo

NormanNicetouch wrote: »

Presumably the British ought to get upset when our media (including RTE and the posh papers) consistently and incorrectly refer to HM as 'the Queen of England'. But they don't. Perhaps they're a bit more grown up than some of us over here.

She is the Queen of England. That is her official title. Sorry, HM is actually:-

Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the other Commonwealth realms. But that is a bit of a mouth full in fairness

I call for a rename of the state (Ireland that is)

IRELAND: Island Referred to as Eire Land Autonomy Not a Dominion

NormanNicetouch

She is actually the Queen of the United Kingdom. Hasn't been a Queen of England since the 18th century.

Elmo

NormanNicetouch wrote: »

She is actually the Queen of the United Kingdom. Hasn't been a Queen of England since the 18th century.

I believe it is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. If we are being pedantic.

O'Coonassa

Elmo wrote: »

She is the Queen of England. That is her official title. Sorry, HM is actually

Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the other Commonwealth realms. But that is a bit of a mouth full in fairness

Upon her accession to the throne, her style and title in full was: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

I call her Liz though, it's easier.

ejmaztec

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Let's go back, let's go back, let's go way on way back when....

Before the Gaels arrived with their fancy new fangled Q-Celtic we were speaking Briton speak ie: Brythonic P-Celtic.

Pytheas, a Greek fella, made a voyage of exploration around the British Isles around 300BC. He called the islands collectively as αι Βρεττανιαι, usually translated as the Brittanic Isles, although more accurately it is Prettanic meaning 'painted' after the blue wode we all wore on our savage skyclad bodies lol

The peoples of these islands of were called by the name the Πρεττανοι, or Pretani and that's the root of Briton and where the Romans got it from.

In other words - "feckin Greeks!" I knew it was them all along, because it's always their fault.:D

liamygunner29

All I know is Boards is just a load of people trying to look smart

Koloman

Rabies wrote: »

We are such a fussy bunch.

I think we are well within our rights to be fussy on this issue!

Sarky

If it annoys you so much, take a stand against it. I know- Why not occupy a well-known landmark, say, the GPO. Declare war on those illiterate bastards for DARING to defy the pigeonhole you insist on for your chosen, beloved nation. Alas, execution is gone from Europe these days, so in order to get the necessary public outcry, you'll have to shoot yourselves just before they capture you. That'll teach THEM. Go on, it'll be great. How could the entire country FAIL to show solidarity and support for your spontaneous, worthy cause?

Beanstalk

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Upon her accession to the throne, her style and title in full was: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

I call her Liz though, it's easier.

Its just easier to say 'Queenie' like in blackadder.

Hagar

Don't be watching the BBC. Simple as.

Except when they have hot wimmins on. Hot wimmins are trans-national.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

THere is a huge differance between the republic of Ireland and the north of Ireland, there is also a huge differance between the republic of Ireland and Ireland...

Didn't you do history and geography in school???

Elmo

Elmo wrote: »

I believe it is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If we are being pedantic.

fyp, you don't want a hoard of mad republicians after your arse...

CiDeRmAn

Unfortunately for those who wish to see everyone as nervous, twitchy folk, peering over garrison walls at neighbours, we, the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English have far far more in common than we do have differences.
Especially since the aristocratic root of british politics was pretty much rooted out during the 20th century, now we all have representation in bodies of government by the common people.
As a result, while we can acknowledge certain cultural differences, histories and so on, we are destined for a shared future of increasing co-operation and reliance on each other.
This is not simply confined to these small islands, but, to varying degrees, to the world as a whole, as single nation states can no longer exist in isolation, and must invest in the well being of the rest of the globe to ensure the continuation of their respective populations into the future.

All this really means is, regarless of past differences, of massacres, wars, atrocities, name calling, empire building and so-on, we have to move into the future, our kids future as one, with common goals.
Seeing the englisg/brits as "The Auld Enemy" is, frankly, bollox, meaningless crap espoused by politically defunct parties, drunks and the ignorant, or sometimes all three in the same person.

The BBC, on the other hand, are simply doing their job, presenting the news to the british public, in the correct vernacular for the british people, with words like LondonDerry included.
And, having had dealings with folk in the UK with deliveries, most of them don't seem to notice a difference in status between Northern Ireland and The Irish Republic/Eire/Republic of Ireland/Land of Saints and Scholars/Emerald Isle/Hibernia and so on, so when they refer to here as "The Irish Republic" don't be too hard on them, at least they aren't showing entertaining cartoons of Irish men as de-evolved apes, as the british press did back in the 1800's!

O'Coonassa

Beanstalk wrote: »

Great post! If this is all true then I stand corrected. I studied latin for a little while but i was rubbish at it, wish id done a little Greek now!

I know Pytheas made observations about mainland Britain, is there any evidence he set foot upon Ireland?

Also, are you certain the Romans would've replaced the pronunciation of Pretannic from P to B or is this just later scholarly error? Did the Greeks continuosly refer to it as Prettan[n]ia Is it possible the name Briton comes from the native language on the Island at the time?

Do you think Pytheas was referring to Ireland and Britain collectively?

He was definitely talking about both islands hence the prefix αι which indicates feminine plural. Before the Gaels arrived you couldn't really tell 'us' on this island from 'them' on that island on account of us all being Brythonic P-Celts. Ivernic is the only P-Celtic language that we have on historical record in Ireland, it was spoken by people in Munster and north Leinster iirc and existed alongside the new Q-Celtic tounge of the Gaels for quite a time before the culture was subsumed. Some have suggested that these people were the Fir Bolg from the book of invasions. Presumably it's speakers were more numerous and harder to dominate than the other P-Celts. Along the Welsh/Leinster coastlines and Scots/Ulster coastlines there was traffic going back to neolithic times. The Welsh word for the neolithic roundhouse ruins dotted around Snowdonia and elsewhere actually translates as Irishmen's huts. And even when Ptolemy was mapping the Islands the Brigante tribe were located both in north England and in Leinster.

Unfortunately none of Pytheas's writings still exist and I don't know if he ever set foot in Ireland but sure if you'd come all this way I'm inclined to think why wouldn't you? As for how the P got corrupted to B I don't have an explanation of that apart from the fact that they sound fairly similar and language dialect corrupts over time like chinese whispers.

Rebelheart

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Let's go back, let's go back, let's go way on way back when....

Before the Gaels arrived with their fancy new fangled Q-Celtic we were speaking Briton speak ie: Brythonic P-Celtic.

Pytheas, a Greek fella, made a voyage of exploration around the British Isles around 300BC. He called the islands collectively as αι Βρεττανιαι, usually translated as the Brittanic Isles, although more accurately it is Prettanic meaning 'painted' after the blue wode we all wore on our savage skyclad bodies lol

The peoples of these islands of were called by the name the Πρεττανοι, or Pretani and that's the root of Briton and where the Romans got it from.

Now if that is not the most ahistorical piece of nationalistic drivel I have ever read on Boards.ie I don't know what is.

That you even think that there was some linguistic nation covering Ireland and Britain over 2000 years ago is an astonishing case of embracing myths of British nationalism, such as propagated by John Dee, the man who is recorded as being the first user of the term "British Isles" in the English language. Oh, and that use was not "around 300 BC" but rather in 1577. To be precise. If you know of it being used before that date you should contact the Oxford English Dictionary forthwith.

How ironic that for all your anti-nationalist rhetoric you are so quick to embrace the nationalist myths, like linguistic unity thousands of years ago, of the "British Isles" nationalists.

Oh, as for your rather vacuous implied belief that language is stagnant and meanings don't change, the swastika was a symbol of peace in Hindu culture thousands of years ago. Lets all fly the swastika now, shall we?

Hagar

Rebelheart wrote: »

Oh, as for your rather vacuous implied belief that language is stagnant and meanings don't change, the swastika was a symbol of peace in Hindu culture thousands of years ago. Lets all fly the swastika now, shall we?

The Hindu "swastika" is not the same, it rotates in the opposite direction and was a symbol of peace. It is fitting that the Third Reich symbol which epitomized evil should be diagrammatically opposite.

Rebelheart

O'Coonassa wrote: »

He was definitely talking about both islands hence the prefix αι which indicates feminine plural. Before the Gaels arrived you couldn't really tell 'us' on this island from 'them' on that island on account of us all being Brythonic P-Celts.

Unbelievable amount of rubbish. You could tell the difference between tribes in Ireland 500 years ago but it seems when we were all in this glorious "British Isles" thousands of years ago we were all the same. And you hate nationalist myths?!?! (just Irish nationalist myths, it seems after all)

I'm surprised that there appears to be one person on this board who is giving you credit for this nonsense. My 5-year-old neighbour would find it laughable.

Rebelheart

Hagar wrote: »

The Hindu "swastika" is not the same, it rotates in the opposite direction and was a symbol of peace. It is fitting that the Third Reich symbol which epitomized evil should be diagrammatically opposite.

If the "British Isles" of 2000 years ago is justifying the "British Isles" of today well then it is very appropriate to justify the swastika of the 20th century by use of the swastika 2000 years ago. It makes just as much sense, given the "we are all one nation" logic of the advocates of the term "British Isles".

Hagar

Rebelheart wrote: »

If the "British Isles" of 2000 years ago is justifying the "British Isles" of today well then it is very appropriate to justify the swastika of the 20th century by use of the swastika 2000 years ago. It makes just as much sense, given the "we are all one nation" logic of the advocates of the term "British Isles".

You're preaching to the choir with that one.

Dudess

ejmaztec wrote: »

She's got a paranoia alarm in the bat-cave.

No, it's a "people desperately trying to find reasons to hold on to bitterness towards the English" alarm... :pac:

Joey the lips wrote: »

We are Irish no matter what and the west brits can go jump!

Define a west Brit?

Rebelheart

Rebelheart wrote: »

If the "British Isles" of 2000 years ago is justifying the "British Isles" of today well then it is very appropriate to justify the swastika of the 20th century by use of the swastika 2000 years ago. It makes just as much sense, given the "we are all one nation" logic of the advocates of the term "British Isles".

It depends on whether you are referring to a geographic, political or ethenic location.

The political and ethenic landscapes change, but the physical topology doesn't change (Rapidly). It's only a label!

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

No, it's a "people desperately trying to find reasons to hold on to bitterness towards the English" alarm... :pac:

I'm amazed that they havn't tried to blame Britain for the "Industrial school" system or for the "brown envelopes".

But, then again, it's a classic diversion tactic. A bit like trying to stop the annoying toothache by dropping a brick on yer foot.

Rebelheart

Dudess wrote: »

No, it's a "people desperately trying to find reasons to hold on to bitterness towards the English" alarm... :pac:

Define a west Brit?

I prefer the original from 1832:

"The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of the Empire, provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again."


- Former British Yeoman during the 1798 rebellion, and self-confessed killer, Daniel O Connell (who, despite
the mythology, threatened violence in his political campaigns several times)

Rebelheart

Deleted User wrote: »

It depends on whether you are referring to a geographic, political or ethenic location.

The political and ethenic landscapes change, but the physical topology doesn't change (Rapidly). It's only a label!

"It's only a label" sounds rather supercilious given the human geography that we know as history attached to it, no?

In all three areas above pushing Ireland into something some British people still call the British Isles is arbitrary and politically motivated in both the term's origin in the English language and its use by British eurosceptics today. It speaks to a nationalist desire for a new nation of the "British Isles" where myths such as linguistic and cultural unity of all the people across these islands thousands of years ago are trotted out as historical fact.

Beanstalk

Rebelheart wrote: »

Now if that is not the most ahistorical piece of nationalistic drivel I have ever read on Boards.ie I don't know what is. That you even think that there was some linguistic nation covering Ireland and Britain over 2000 years ago is an astonishing case of embracing myths of British nationalism, such as propagated by John Dee, the man who is recorded as being the first user of the term "British Isles" in the English language. Oh, and that use was not "around 300 BC" but rather in 1577. To be precise. If you know of it being used before that date you should contact the Oxford English Dictionary forthwith.

How ironic that for all your anti-nationalist rhetoric you are so quick to embrace the nationalist myths, like linguistic unity thousands of years ago, of the "British Isles" nationalists.

Oh, as for your rather vacuous implied belief that language is stagnant and meanings don't change, the swastika was a symbol of peace in Hindu culture thousands of years ago. Lets all fly the swastika now, shall we?

I think all O'Coonasa was saying was that he believes a term used to regard Britian and Ireland collectively as a group of isles in Greek was in use in ancient history. I don't think thats nationalistic drivel, the topic is in debate you don't have to take it as fact if you don't want to.

It's perfectly acceptable to assume that there were close linguistic relations (not linguistic unity as you accuse it of being) between certain parts of Britain and Ireland prior to the Roman invasion through trade, settling, raiding etc. Its really difficult to analyze because most of our sources are classical scholars.

j1smithy

A little bit of history on the subject. As far as I know, there was a long running dispute between our two nations for many years. Ireland used to refer to the UK as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, rather than its correct name of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, While The UK government used to call Ireland, the Irish republic. This nonsense was finally sorted out in the Good Friday agreement and since then both nations refer to each other as they would like to be called.

The president when accepting accreditation of foreign ambassidors will accept only accept letters that are titled to the president of eire, president of Ireland, president of the republic of ireland but will refuse accreditation addressed to the president of the irish republic.

I don't think the BBC are out to offend us tbh. It does reflect badly on them though that they haven't updated their out of date style guide or are inconsistencies within it. However I'm not so upset about it that it prevents me reading their excellent news service.

bardcom

Ah - Goldie at it again. Hi Goldheart :-) Maybe some people will be a little more enlightened after this...

Most of this discussion is straight off the Wikipedia pages. Most of the arguments are too.

Fratton Fred

Jesus, talk about small man syndrome.