Disputatio:Britanniarum regnum

Iustinius: Suavius legitur. Gratias.

Me iuvat, et gratias tibi ;) -Iustinus

A comment about Charles's regnal title was added here at the top of the page. I moved it to the bottom, as normal with Wikipedia talk pages. Please look there and comment further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 28 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Unitum =?

What's this Unitum? Ainsworth's Dictionary (square brackets in original) has:

To unite [as two kingdoms do] In unam ditionem coire.

and

United, Conjunctus, coalescens.

None of the (three) Classical Latin dictionaries I've checked has an adjective unitus, -a, -um, and only one has the verb unio, -ire (meaning 'join together', with the past participle unitus, -a, -um), marked "post-Augustan" and "very rare," yet it abounds in Vicipaedia. Is it a twenty-first-century calque from the Italian? Should it be embraced or suppressed? An appropriate thing to do here, for anybody who has the time, would be to check early eighteenth-century British sources to find out how contemporaries of the Act of Union (1707) rendered United Kingdom in Latin. It might be easy for someone with time and a good library (desiderata that, alas, exclude me), because minutes of debates in Parliament were kept in Latin well into the nineteenth century. IacobusAmor 12:35, 17 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

The closest I've seen to an older term matching this was Unio Regnorum and even that I'm not entirely sure was referring to this. In an age of less pedantry, Magna Britannia was used more often, as far as I can tell. —Myces Tiberinus 21:38, 17 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Unitus-a-um occurs in the canon of the mass and numerous collects. The difficulty surely is not that it is Rergnum unitum but that should really be Regna Unita - but that anomaly is in th English name too.Tergum violinae 19:41, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Before the Act of Union

"United Kingdom" and "Regnum Unitum" have no true meaning before 1707, though admittedly England and Scotland shared a monarch from 1603 on. I moved the history section, all of which (except the reference to the Iraq War!) belonged to Britannia (which is where I put it) or to Britannia (Roman province) (where it may be duplicated?). I removed the monarchs before 1603, and put in the later ones who were left out; the famous people from earlier centuries also ought to be removed, I think. Shakespeare is not a United Kingdom playwright. Do others agree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:33, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Shakespeare was an English playright (but he was still alive when King James VI/I came to the throne.) Jake95 21:07, 31 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's true! But the crucial date, anyway, is 1707. I doubtfully retained the list of kings between 1603 and 1707, since England and Scotland had the same monarch during that period, but it might be more accurate to remove them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

The crucial date would be 1800. The Acts of Union 1707 joined the kingdoms of England and Scotland together, but the new country was simply called the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was not until the Act of Union 1800, when Ireland joined the party, that the United Kingdom was created. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 19:52, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Video Vicipaediam iam habere haec verba: "Unum aliorum muniorum magnorum temporis Henrici erat Act of Union (Latine: "Conductionis Lex"), decretum 1536 cives Cambriae reddens etiam cives Angliae." IacobusAmor 20:04, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but as certain English people will tell you under their breath, Wales doesn't count.

I readily admit to being an imperfect constitutional historian, and no doubt LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs has the right of it. It was from 1800 (roughly) that kings began to claim on their coinage to be Rex Britanniarum: Britanniae, "the Britains" was I suppose a sort of Latin equivalent to "United Kingdom". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:23, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I see that while I was drafting this little message, the same conclusion has been reached below. Great minds think alike. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

And when Her Majesty tells us what Latin style she wants, who are we to disobey? Before Ireland got involved, though, we might find that the monarch's title was merely Rex Britanniae ; in other words, I'd guess the "Britains" to be: (1) the England–Wales–Scotland thingy and (2) Ireland. IacobusAmor 20:38, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. See the regal titles listed at Index Regum Regni Uniti (which I have just edited to reflect your discovery below). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:54, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

On the internet, we also find this (boldface added):

<<Proclamation as to the Royal Style and Titles and as to the Ensigns Armorial, Standard, and Union Jack. London, January 1, 1801. (The Times, January 3, 1801, page 4d. See also Statutory Rules & Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised to Dec 31, 1948, II 789)

By the King. — A Proclamation.

Declaring His Majesty's Pleasure concerning the Royal Stile and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and its Dependencies, and also the Ensigns Armorial, Flags, and Banners thereof.

George R.

Whereas by the first article of the articles of Union of Great Britain and Ireland, ratified and confirmed by two Acts of Parliament, the one passed in the Parliament of Great Britain, and the other in the Parliament of Ireland, and respectively intituled, An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, it was declared, That the said Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland should upon this day, being the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1801, for ever after be united in One Kingdom, by the name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and that the Royal Stile and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the said United Kingdom and its Dependencies, and also the Ensigns Armorial, Flags, and Banners thereof, should be such as we, by our Royal Proclamation, under the Great Seal of the said United Kingdom, should appoint; we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to appoint and declare that our Royal Stile and Titles shall henceforth be accepted, taken, and used, as the same are set forth in manner and form following, that is to say, the same shall be expressed in the Latin tongue by these words:—"GEORGIUS TERTIUS, Dei Gratia, Britanniarum Rex, Fidei Defensor:" GEORGE the THIRD, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith.">> IacobusAmor 21:05, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

There is a rather significant political problem here which may have been overlooked. Ireland is one of the British Isles - in Latin the plural Britanniae must refer to these geographical entities - but no part of Ireland is in Britain, North or South, hence the title the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. The convenient archaism you have adopted does not make this clear. [This was Tergum Violinae if I'm not mistaken]

We have adopted a name that is used officially. Are you suggesting replacing it? If so, it should be with something that has at least equal official sanction, I would say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the attested Latin name hasn't caught up with modern political correctness. Within the complexities of Northern Irish politics the terms Britain and British are best avoided except with reference to the big island with Scotland and England on it (and Wales). I believe many Irish now do not use the geographical term British Isles but prefer east Atlantic Archipelago - ridiculous, I know, but there you are! Tergum violinae 19:52, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Well, in favour of your argument, the coins stopped saying BRITT.OMN. in 1957. It never occurred to me that political correctness might be the reason. So, if you can find an attestation of the Latin name of the kingdom(s!) after 1957, we could go with it. It's attestations we need, because this was or is an official name. If we can confirm the current official [Latin] name and you still consider it to be politically incorrect, you really need to tell the Queen about it, I think ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

In the infobox, what is "religio personus" supposed to mean? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Many of the terms found in infoboxes throughout the wiki, alas, have less than perfect, less even than comprehensible Latin. This "Latin" repeatedly uses "personus -a -um" to mean "of the people", which is patently absurd. But all that work was difficult to undo, so it's still floating around in a lot of places. --Iustinus 16:50, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved: 'United Kingdom' = Britanniae

Vide:

<<ROYAL PROCLAMATION reciting the altered Style and Titles of the Crown. London, 29th May, 1953 (British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 160, p. 2; citing the Eleventh Supplement of The London Gazette of 26th May, 1953.) BY THE QUEEN

A PROCLAMATION

ELIZABETH R.

WHEREAS there has been passed in the present Session of Parliament the Royal Titles Act, 1953 [1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c.9], which Act recites that it is expedient that the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown should be altered so as to reflect more clearly the existing constitutional relations of the members of the Commonwealth to one another and their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth. . . .

We have thought fit, and We do hereby appoint and declare, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, that so far as conveniently may be, on all occasions and in all instruments wherein Our style and titles are used in relation to all or any one or more of the following, that is to say, the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Our Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, Our style and titles shall henceforth be accepted, taken and used as the same are set forth in manner and form following, that is to say, the same shall be expressed in the English tongue by these words:—

"Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ".

And in the Latin tongue by these words:—

"Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor ".

Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and fifty-three, and in the Second year of Our Reign.>>

So what's this Regnum Unitum business?! IacobusAmor 20:13, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness! Shall we move it, then? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:29, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I confess that referring to the country Britanniae (outside of titulary formulas) sounds rather awkward. But what are you going to do? It's right there in black and white. --Iustinus 20:34, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Is it just my poor Latin, or does regina Britanniarum refer to the people (queen of the British) rather than the country? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 21:55, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be regina Britannorum (or, if they all turn female, Britannarum). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:11, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

If they all turn female? Hmmm, that brings to mind certain national stereotypes :P

There's also Brito -nis, but I suppose that might be reserved for the ancient people. --Iustinus 22:32, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure: United Kingdon is then Britannia regnaque cetera (videlicet reginae) --Alex1011 08:01, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not right (it's complicated, isn't it?) The nominative of the phrase you are citing is "Britanniae regnaque sua cetera" (the Britains and her other realms). That's supposed to hint at the other Commonwealth countries (not all of them, because some are republics) of which she is also queen. "Britanniae" means the United Kingdom; "regna cetera" covers Canada, Australia, New Zealand ...

On coins, as a shorter alternative to "Britanniarum regnorumque suorum ceterorum", they instead used the phrase "Britanniarum omnium" (of all the Britains). This phrase was introduced on coins around 1900, around the time various former Imperial possessions were becoming Dominions. Between 1800 and about 1900, they just said "Britanniarum" (of the Britains), which meant of the United Kingdom. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:21, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

If United Kingdom is Britanniae that might explain why in other countries the term Great Britain is used, sort of a translation from Latin. (Little Britain being Bretagne or Brittany) On the license plate you also find GB, not UK. --Alex1011 13:05, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the two have never been coterminous, and they still aren't. Northern Ireland is in UK, but it isn't in GB. Great Britain is a translation for Britannia (sg.), not for Britanniae (pl.). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, since we have long thought that "Regnum Unitum" is a faulty form, and "Britanniae" is too close to "Britannia" to make a good entry name, our Wikipedia equivalent for United Kingdom should be "Regnum Britanniarum". Any other opinions? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:49, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent compromise.

I am almost certain that Magna Britania occurs in Latin (besides in Egger). I'm not saying that should be the article title, I'm just saying "Great Britain" is not a translation of Britaniae. --Iustinus 14:44, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Magna Britannia is really synonymous with Britannia.

As Alex says above, the Magna is added to distinguish Britain from Britanny. The adjective is essential in French (Grande-Bretagne as opposed to Bretagne); it is optional in English and Latin (in the latter, Britanny is called Armorica anyway). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:58, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

On another note: in none of the Latin styles we've cited so far is Ireland mentioned by name. Currently, in the respective articles, we seem to be claiming that the name Hibernia only applies to Ancient Ireland, and the modern country is Irlandia. I have no doubt I could find attestations of Irlandia, but is that really the official name? Honestly I kind of doubt it. (Replies should probably go to Disputatio:Irlandia --Iustinus 14:57, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Rei titulus nunc est: "Regnum Unitum Britanniae Magnae et Hiberniae Septentrionalis." Nomen recte est solum "Regnum Britanniarum," non? IacobusAmor 16:01, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Sic. Quo brevior, eo melior? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:11, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Another problem solved: 'Commonwealth of Nations' = Consortio Populorum

Incidentally, the queen's proclamation posted above gives us the correct Latin for 'Commonwealth of Nations': Consortio Populorum. IacobusAmor 20:20, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

United Nations?

The queen's proclamation above may imply that the best Latin for the United Nations should include a form of Populi (and not of Nationes), perhaps Populi Consociati or Populi Socii. Such a form would have the advantage of including those entities that aren't formally "nations" but still have some sort of official UN recognition and participate in various UN-sponsored activities. IacobusAmor 15:30, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Disputatio:Nationes Unitae --Iustinus 16:30, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Egger

Bizarrely, Egger doesn't seem to give an equivalent for "United Kingdom" anywhere, apparently feeling it sufficient to have an entry for Gran Bretagna (which he gives as Magna Bitannia [sic]). In entries for placenames in England, he generally uses glosses like urbs Britanniae (yet, for Scotland he says Scotiae!) Quite sloppy, I'm afraid. --Iustinus 20:32, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

problem unsolved

That leaves the question "reunification of Germany" and "European Union". --Alex1011 21:00, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

For the latter, I'd suggest Ditio Europaea, but we mustn't use it, quia verbum ditio numquam invenitur in recto casu, nisi in compositione. IacobusAmor 21:12, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least one official document gives the name as RES PUBLICA EVROPAEA [sic] (The "STATVS" in that inscription of course means "constitution", but it caused a good deal of controversy among people who thought it meant "state" and freaked out that it was in the singular). There has also been a LOT of discussion of the union in neo-Latin circles (e.g. see the sources cited at Euro#Fontes), so it should be easy to find citations in less official discourse. --Iustinus 22:35, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Gratias ago. (That means "Unio Europaea" should also be moved.) What about "United Nations"? "Consortio nationum"? --Alex1011 12:49, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, "Unio Europaea" could easily be misunderstood as European pearl or (more probably) European onion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Disputatio:Unio Europaea --Iustinus 17:03, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Consortio Populorum

I started Consortio Populorum. --Alex1011 13:39, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Gratias! IacobusAmor 15:32, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Britannia vs. Europa

Estne opinio Britanniam non esse partem Europae Anglica aut Latina? --Alex1011 19:28, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Bene mones. Emendavi. Doops 20:08, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

None

Home Page I am really excited! Very useful. It very impressive. :-)

Historical reference, 1784

For the record, I happened upon the text of a law whose title reads that it's done at Parliament on 18 May anno "Georgii III. Regis Magnae Britanniae, Franciae, & Hiberniae vicesimo quarto" [= 1784], "by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c." (italics omitted). N.B.: France! IacobusAmor 13:34, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I think its refering to Normandy. Remember William the conquerer was French!--Rafaelgarcia 13:43, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Nope. See English claims to the French throne. —Mucius Tever 18:27, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Vandalismus

Re: "Reverti recensiones ab usore PipepBot (Disputatio | conlationes) ad emendationem proximam ab SieBot)"—Identically worded vandalism has appeared elsewhere in Vicipaedia. Time to block this bot? IacobusAmor 13:50, 10 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

It was a different bot. As I understand it, it's not the bots' fault. It's because a cross-wiki vandal is changing the names of the articles about "Great Britain". The bots then come and do their normal job, updating the interwiki links. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 10 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. Devious! IacobusAmor 16:47, 10 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Fons secundus

There is also Britanniarum Regnum Unitum [1] but it is only on an inscription on a monument. Does it deserve a mention? Harrissimo 13:41, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

If the conclusion Regnum Britanniarum was worked back from Britanniarum Rex/Regina, maybe the unitum should to be there? After all, you wouldn't say Rex Britanniarum Unitus and so the Unitum may only come in in the actual place name rather than a human's title. Therefore I think that page should either be Britanniae or Britanniarum Regnum Unitum (eventhough people always seem to cringe at use of unio). Harrissimo 14:46, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC).

It's apparently Britanniae according to the queen, and most Vicipaedians have been interpreting that to mean Britanniarum Regnum. Vide supra. I take unio to be an onion, but then that's just me. ;) IacobusAmor 14:59, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Well the Unio Europaea does make me want to cry sometimes... Harrissimo 15:47, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC).

I think that inscription deserves a mention, but I also think that our standard name for this kingdom needs more support than just one inscription. It's been the United Kingdom for 200 years, and quite a bit of Latin has flowed under Tower Bridge in that time. The coins, for example, could perfectly well say "Britanniarum Unitarum Rex/Regina", but in fact they don't. For them, "Britanniarum" is enough.

But I readily accept that if you can find some additional evidence for the Latin name of the kingdom, that would be even better evidence than the Latin titles of the king/queen. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I will footnote Britanniarum Regnum Unitum. On the topic of Britanniae being plural, I came across the articles Comes Britanniarum and Dux Britanniarum on en.wiki. Do either of you know why it might be plural in those cases?

(a) Because the later Roman empire was a prefiguration of the United Kingdom ... or perhaps rather (b) because there were two provinces of Britain by later Roman times (Inferior and Superior: don't ask me which was which) and the said dux and comes had responsibilities in both of them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

My main point now is that maybe we should consider just calling it Britanniae rather than Britanniarum Regnum because of the official use of Britanniae as the U.K. (as Clavis Calendaria says: "the word BRITANNIARUM, first introduced upon that occasion, being regarded as expressive, under one term, of the United Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland." Apart from the obvious advantage of Britanniae being officially cited and Britanniarum Regnum not being, it is also short and easier to remember. Harrissimo 15:47, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC).

Interesting. But your quotation from Clavis calendaria doesn't actually support you: it says Britanniarum, which we, being sticklers for grammar, have to complete with some nominative or other. If you can find some evidence for "Britanniae", just like that, used as the name for the United Kingdom, then, fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Here are some links which loosely connect the two (but don't shout "Britanniae = UK") [2][3][4]. Harrissimo 16:43, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC).

Another weak nominative: Nuntii Latini convert Britanniarum Omnium to Britanniae Omnes [5]. Harrissimo 16:56, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC).

No. The Wikisource merely tells you that "Magnae Britanniae, Hiberniae [rex]" (genitive singulars) are alternatives to "Britanniarum [rex]", which we knew: that's where we started. The two Googlebooks are about Ptolemy's usage of "Britanniae" (plural) for the British Isles, 1700 years before the United Kingdom existed. In the Finnish news item Britanniae is a gen. sg. qualifying "minister", and omnes is an acc. pl. adj. modifying "accusationes". Now, sorry, I have to drop out here -- I've other things to do. But I think maybe you're on a loser with this one ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:10, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Papal diplomatic use

The credentials of the new Vatican ambassador describe Charles as "[rex] Regni Uniti Magnae Britanniae", not "Britanniarum regni" or the like. 31.112.5.28 17:49, 27 Maii 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, if it's exact, because it excludes Northern Ireland. Where did you see this? Please cite a source that we can check, if possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 28 Maii 2023 (UTC)

The Vatican is well known for using the rare verb unire (which Cassell's does not give as good Latin for English 'unite'), and not just here, but in reference to the United States as Status Uniti, a phrase that an omniglot Cicero might want to translate back into English as 'the Unified Conditions'. These names presumably echo modern Italian forms. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:24, 28 Maii 2023 (UTC)

«The Vatican is well known for using the rare verb unire»: “Britanniarum Regnum Unitum” appears in monuments though (the same inscription was shown by Harrissimo in 2028). As long as we translate unitus, -a, -um as “that has been united” I don't see anything against using it. It is a relatively rare verb, true, but that does not make it forbidden. Interestingly, Seneca calls unita corpora a “jargon of philosophers” (cfr. Sen. Q. N. II, 2, 4: “si philosophorum lingua uti voluissem, ut dicerem unita corpora”) – but I don't know if he was referring to the specific verb or instead to the concept, per se philosophical, of uniting bodies. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:50, 30 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby dixit «a source that we can check»: Here is a Vatican document from 2013 that contains the text “Regni uniti Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae superioris” (so Ireland is mentioned explictly). I am fine with using the Vatican, but if we found an official document published in Latin by the United Kingdom itself I would prefer referring to that. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:00, 31 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Secundum Georges (1918) verbum temporale unio non solum in papali usu est. Cf: http://www.zeno.org/nid/20002711265 - Giorno2 (disputatio) 17:17, 30 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Did someone say it was? ¶ Meanwhile: Andrew asked a good question, and neither 31.112.5.28 nor anyone else has offered an answer. (Remarks in the previous chapter may prove pertinent.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:40, 30 Maii 2023 (UTC)

31.112.5.28 fortasse Hiberniam omisit ...

"Hiberniam superiorem" (loco "septentrionalem" vel "borealem") usque adhuc non vidi: gratias ago. Cum Grufone consentio: formulam scriptorum Vaticanorum citare licet, sed formulam a Britannis usitatum praeferre oportet. Britanni certe "regnum Britanniarum" diu scribebant: an hodie scribunt, nescimus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 31 Maii 2023 (UTC)

The point is that officially Ireland became an independent republic only in 1949; maybe the UK kept forging coins for a few more years in which the word “Britanniarum” still appeared, but it would not have been correct to continue to do so. So I believe that unless we find a modern British document that says “Britanniarum” we should better drop it and stick to the Vatican (“Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae superioris”). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:02, 31 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Here's a modern British Roman Catholic website that uses Britanniarum Regnum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:21, 31 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a useful citation.

Grufo, I think I've lived more than a few years since 1949; all that time I've been handling British coins that were quite purposefully designed and lettered. (I've never knowingly used one that was "forged", which would have been a criminal offence!) Joking apart, British and not Vatican documents would be our preferred source for this official British terminology. We have plenty of sources, certainly, to the end of Elizabeth's reign: we may not yet have all the pieces in our hands for Charles III, but Vicipaedia is a work in progress. Let's wait and see.

Compare en:wiki en:Style of the British sovereign with DBPedia "About: Style of the British sovereign". The latter page has a full Latin form for Charles III, but what was its source?

OK, here's a reliable source: Burke's Peerage. I suspect DBpedia copied from this, and en:wiki hasn't got around to it. See this page giving English and Latin forms: "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His Other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith (Carolus III, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Rex, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor). It's interesting, and useful to us, that this gives his Latin name as "Carolus", although it is said that the coin inscriptions read "Charles". See my added comment at Disputatio:Carolus III (rex Britanniarum)#Charles vs Carolus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 1 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions about this, so I guess we can keep the page as it is until we receive an official complaint from Ireland (P.S. about "forging", my bad, I am switching between too many languages lately). --Grufo (disputatio) 15:44, 1 Iunii 2023 (UTC)