GB Union Flag 1606 to 1801 sticker

Question

Hi. I think it would be useful to have a sticker for the political union of Great Britain 1606 to 1801, similar to the UK one for the later period 1801 to present. There is currently a wikitree flag but not a sticker. I think the GB sticker would be particularly useful for profiles where it is uncertain in exactly which part of Britain the person was born. For example, I have encountered records where people were born on the border between England and Wales and some records state the person was born in England, others in Wales. Other examples are when people were 'British subjects' born at sea or where records simply state 'British subject by birth', etc. many thanks, David

Answer 1

Thanks, David, for posting this proposal on G2G. I am having a little trouble thinking of profiles where I would use a sticker for "born in Great Britain". I tend to only use "born in" stickers where I am reasonably confident of the birthplace – and then I use the "born in England", "born in Scotland" etc. stickers. If their birthplace is uncertain, I don't use a "born in" sticker.

The "born in the United Kingdom" sticker is not widely used and to a large degree its use was superseded by the more specific born in England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland stickers. Of the profiles that use it, a lot of them have certain birthplaces and many also have a "born in England" etc. sticker.

I think we also need to be careful not to confuse birthplace and nationality. I personally wouldn't describe a person who is a British subject because they were born at sea on a British ship, or born abroad to British parents, as "born in Great Britain".

Lastly, just one detail ... the Acts of Union which created Great Britain came into effect in 1707 rather than 1606.

Ian, co-leader, England Project

Comments

Mind you, the Union Jack was used from 1606 at sea only.

---

Hi.Many thanks for the replies. Regarding 'born at sea', I suppose whether a person was regarded as born in Great Britain or not may depend on whether they were born on what were considered British coastal waters at the time. I have also seen the phrase 'British subject by birth' or similar used quite a lot on census records.

regards, David

---

British subject by birth does not always equate to "born in Great Britain". I can think of many in my own family who were British subject by birth but were born in places like Malta, Sicily and Corfu. A born in Great Britain sticker for the reason that they were "British" would be misleading and potentially confusing for other researchers.

---

I would add Hong Kong (until recently), India and what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh to those who might be "British subject by birth", yet never have seen any part of Britain.

---

Hi David, I would read “British subject by birth” to mean that the person became a British subject at the time of birth -- rather than through naturalisation at some later date. The rules about nationality are complex, but generally speaking a person could become a British subject at birth “by blood” (e.g. if their parents were British subjects) or “by soil” (if they were born in Britain, its colonies, dominions etc). There were many people who were British subjects by birth but weren't born in the UK. Up until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the UK was called a “British subject” including people born in Commonwealth countries.

By the way, I also added some tags to your G2G question to make it easier for others to find it.

---

Hi.

Many thanks for all the replies. My question was really intended as a technical one on why wikitree has a country flag but apparently no sticker (unlike most). I have since found a potential workaround with a template -

{{Image|file=Flags-2.gif

|align=r

|size=s

|caption=GB

}}

The template could be adapted for other countries,etc. that don't have wikitree stickers.

---

David, Steven Harris has said that the Non-Migrating Ancestor template can be used for this type of thing.  Indeed, the first example on the page is for a "born in" :

{{Nonmigrating Ancestor
|addinfo=Elizabeth Starbuck was born on Nantucket Island.
|flag=Short-3582_Photos-13.png
|tooltip=Flag of Nantucket
}}

---

Hi many thanks for the replies. Perhaps another solution to my original question is to use the template -

{{Occupation |image=Flags-2.gif|text=was born in the Union of Great Britain}}

(for example, or similar text). This solution was kindly suggested by Gill Whitehouse.

best regards, David

---

While living may at times seem somewhat of a chore, just being born is not an occupation.
The non-migrating ancestor sticker would be much preferred to the occupation sticker.

---

Hi Melanie.

 Thanks for the reply. I am a bit confused by what the term 'non-migrating' means. Surely some, if not most people, migrate to some extent or other. 'Occupation' seems to be a more inclusive. term. Apologies for the pedantry.

---

Occupation = job, work.

Someone born somewhere was not occupied at a job in so doing.  (Their MOTHER was, and while the baby being born may be working at it, it is not/was not an occupation, or a job!)

Don't ask me to explain why the non-migrating sticker / template is named such, I just use the thing as recommended by Steven Harris (a bigwig in the categorisation project).  Someone born anywhere in the USA and moving to a different part of the USA isn't migrating by the understanding I have of the migrating ancestor sticker which generally denotes from one country to another (although I have used it to denote internal migration for someone moving from one colony to another).  My understanding of why Steven Harris recommended the non-migrating ancestor is because the person did not EMIGRATE, but simply moved within the country's borders, it is the more appropriate to use.

---

Hi Melanie,

Many thanks again for the explanation - I was thinking of 'occupation' in the broader sense of 'occupation of space, time, etc.'

---

Note - the king of these islands (Great Britain, etc.) at the start of the period in question was [[Stuart-2|King James]] from 1603 to 1625 and he had many successors.