How did the UK change its name? This is a question about the legal process of a state changing its name (not about why it changed its name). In 1927 the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland changed its name to the Parliament of the United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It did this by passing the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. Section 1 of that Act also authorised the King to change his title by proclamation but it was understood (see Hansard) that he would not use the words United Kingdom in his title which became George V. by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India Subsequent British monarchs used a similar title and it was not until 1953 that the Queen changed her title to: 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 so that her title contained United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Before 1953 sometimes treaties were entered into in the name of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (example) sometimes in the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (example) but as far as I can see United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is used consistently after 1953. So my question is by what means and when did the title of the country itself change to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Was it a precise event or did the country gradually come to be called that by frequently using that name in international relations?
The change in the royal title came about following the Imperial Conference of 1926, when the various governments of the Empire agreed that &quot;the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions&quot; were &quot;autonomous Communities ... equal in status&quot;. The Conference declined to pursue developing any kind of Imperial Constitution, preferring instead to draw out a few specific consequences of that agreement. In the Balfour Declaration, section IV(a) asks for legislation to change the King's title. There is also a longer discussion in V(a) about treaties, which affects the examples that you give in the question. Both of your 1930 examples follow the recommendations in this Declaration. The convention on conflict of nationality laws is entered into by the King, with the governments of his realms separately represented and enumerated. It lists two plenipotentiaries &quot;For Great Britain and Northern Ireland&quot;. The omission of &quot;the United Kingdom of&quot; is not material, much like talking about &quot;the Kingdom of Sweden&quot; versus just &quot;Sweden&quot;. The agreement on Bulgarian financial obligations is between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and various other governments. They both refer to Northern Ireland rather than Ireland but differ in form because they use the different structures of a treaty between sovereigns and an agreement between governments. As noted in the Declaration, prior usage was not always obvious to interpret, because of confusion about whether (say) Canada was meant to be bound by a treaty entered into in the name of the King of Great Britain. Likewise, R v. Jameson [1896] 2 QB 425 is an important case on extent of legislation to British possessions - in the past, it was not always explicit whether an Act was for the UK only, and this had to be deduced from context. In debate on the 1927 Act in the Commons, the Home Secretary Sir William Joynson-Hicks (as he then was) said: It is clear that it is a misnomer to continue to talk of &quot;The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.&quot; Quite obviously, since Southern Ireland has been granted Dominion Home Rule, there is no such thing as &quot;The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,&quot; but there is still &quot;The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.&quot; Consequently, after full consultation and interviews with the representatives of Northern Ireland, with the Government of Northern Ireland, it has been decided to ask the House to alter the title of Parliament- and to make it &quot;The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.&quot; and: Certain portions of Ireland have, as it were, slipped out of the United Kingdom, and we now call it the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but it is still the United Kingdom, and this is still the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is clear that he - on behalf of the government - saw the Act as sufficient to change anything already defined in statute which needed to be changed. (It was also debated whether the Great Seal needed to be renamed as well, etc.) The change to the name of the country did not need statutory authorization in contexts where the old name was not required by statute. Diplomatic formulae are not statutory and so aren't mentioned here; the royal prerogative is already enough for the treaty language to be as envisaged going forward. British passports also changed in 1927 to using &quot;United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland&quot; in place of &quot;and Ireland&quot;. At the time, passport issuing was entirely on the basis of the royal prerogative, without any legislative regime. Various other official publications, like statistical reports, used the new name going forward. Some other provisions in the Declaration were given effect in the Statute of Westminster 1931. This should be seen as part of a continuing effort to let the legal situation follow the policy (Commonwealth nations are equal autonomous peers) which itself followed the facts on the ground (the UK government could no longer expect to rule them directly). So there was not precisely a &quot;flag day&quot; when the UK's name changed, but there was a process of recognizing that the name ought to change, some wrangling over how, and the fairly rapid implementation of the change in 1927, at least on the part of the UK government itself.
You can see the whole regulations on www.legislation.gov.uk. It is a referendum. There does not need to be a &quot;winner&quot;. A referendum is meant to understand what the general populace wants. And &quot;they are split exactly 50/50 between X and Y&quot; is a valid result in that frame. The point that made this referendum special was that the ruling party had promised, that they would actually do what the referendums outcome would suggest, even if they were not legally bound by it and were not even in favor of it as a political party. So what the ruling party would have done when confronted by an absolute exact tie (not only percentages, but actual votes) is anybodies guess. I don't think anybody had a backup plan for what happens if the 33,577,342 votes came out exactly 16,788,671 to 16,788,671. The chance of that... was not real. You prepare for that about as much as for an alien invasion on election day.
Why do other countries, like America, not allow this? It is the way that U.S. courts have interpreted the constitutional amendment requirement and reflects a policy judgment that letting someone go free now and then is better than frequently forcing someone to be tried more than once. That value judgment flowed from concerns about and fear and skepticism of the British colonial criminal justice system and the Star Chamber in England with which they were familiar. The U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand didn't have an independence revolution in their history to create the same kind of deep distrust of authority, especially in the criminal justice area. The U.S. was founded by terrorists. Few other former British colonies were. Quoting Dale: &quot;As a constitutional protection, legislative change like this is not available in the United States.&quot; Is that really true and can someone expand on this? When the courts determine that the constitution requires something it can't be changed with ordinary legislation. Either the constitution needs to be amended to change it (which is very hard), or the courts can change their interpretation (which is unlikely in an area so settled in the law and which is relatively uncontroversial between liberals and conservatives in the U.S.). If it is, this is a big problem in my opinion. The powers that be in the U.S. don't agree. This kind of case is exceedingly rare. And, there are much bigger problems with the system that obscure that one. Also, the dual sovereignty doctrine allows federal prosecutions in some wrongful acquittals that really matter (e.g. for civil rights violations by law enforcement).
Article 41.3.3 of the 1937 Irish Constitution said: No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved. Until this section was changed by the 2019 amendment. I can find no source to show how &quot;but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law&quot; was interpreted, but it seems that a person divorced in or prior to 1940 under US law would not have been permitted to marry in Ireland after 1937 until 2019 under this provision. It should be noted that although Finnegans Wake by James Joyce was published in full in 1939, much of it had been written and published in sections by 1926. It is not at all clear just when it is set. In the 1920s, the constitutional provision quoted above was not yet in effect.
It's hard to know why people choose the venues they choose. But, the UK is known for having very plaintiff-friendly libel law (although less-so now). Libel tourism was much more feasible in 1996, when David Irving brought his suit. But, as of 2014, "claimants wanting to sue defendants who do not live in Europe will have to prove that England is the most appropriate place for the case." (New Law Makes Suing for Libel Harder in England) Further, in the U.S., the SPEECH Act of 2010 makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the U.S. unless the defendant would have been found liable even under U.S. Law.
&quot;Why&quot; someone did something is potentially off-topic, but in regards to your hierarchical image - it lacks provenance so cannot be tested, however according to the official judiciary website: The Master of the Rolls is second in judicial importance to the Lord Chief Justice.
This question on Quora says, Although the title is now one of status and prestige without any expectation that the appointee will actually act as counsel to Her Majesty, the appointment still appears to be referred to as an “office” (see Vote Bundle Text (990511-06)). If regarded as an “office”, then the appointment of QC/KC would not be affected by the demise of the Crown. This is because the Demise of the Crown Act 1901 dispenses with the need for the fresh appointment of any office upon the demise of the Crown. So no new letters patent would have to be issued. and Take for example Sir Robert McCall, pictured below, who took silk in 1891, under the reign of Queen Victoria – thus making him a QC. Subsequently, when Victoria’s reign ended, he became a King’s Counsel, adopting the postnominals KC. There seems to be no record of a new letters patent being issued. This question on Quora says, Kings Counsel all immediately became QCs when Queen Elizabeth became Queen. and notes one exception By default, when the gender of the monarch changes, EVERY past reference to Queen becomes King at once, or King to Queen as appropriate. Her Majesty the Queen ordered that the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery should continue to be called the King’s Troop in memory of her father. This article relates to the death of King George VI and is probably the best authentic account available if what actually happened: In London’s High Court, King’s Counselor Harold Shepherd had just finished cross-examining a defendant when the news came. The court adjourned. Ten minutes later, the lawyer resumed the floor as Queen’s Counselor. Painters at another London court set to work painting out the sign “King’s Bench” and replacing it with “Queen’s Bench.”
In long ago English practice, the phrase used was &quot;Stop in the name of the King&quot;. At one time this was, if I am not mistaken, required for a valid arrest. I am talking about a time hundreds of years ago, by the way. That phrase, in turn, goes back to a still older concept. At one time, in Germanic customary law, each important leader had a &quot;peace&quot; -- an area in and around his dwelling, domain, and presence -- in which any violation of law and custom was an offense against the leader, not just against a victim. Inside his &quot;peace&quot; a leader was allowed to enforce rules without any complaint from a victim. Later the peace of all lesser leaders was subsumed in the Kings Peace, which came to cover the entire kingdom, the area of the king's authority and rule. This concept came over with the Normans, although a version of it had come over with the Anglo-Saxons centuries before. That is why indictments in England (later England and Wales) long included such language as &quot;... That on or about {date} the said {accused} did, against the peace of our Lord the King, his crown and dignity, commit {offense} by {details}...&quot; I will need to do some searching to find the exact citations to support this, although Charles Rembar's The Law of the Land includes the part about the king's peace. Specifically, in a footnote on page 192 of my (trade paper) edition (and at location 3345 0f my kindel edition) Rembar writes: The concept of a “peace” that is a ruler’s right goes back to Germanic law. It belonged not only to a king but to each leader in the social structure. Every ruler, naturally enough, wanted order in his group, as do modern governments. The difference is that freedom from disturbance was considered the chieftain’s personal privilege, and disorder among those he led was a personal affront. With the strengthening of central rule, the king’s peace overrode all others. I will need to search further to learn just when the phrase &quot;in the name of the law&quot; became common, and when either phrase ceased to be legally required. I believe that the phrase persisted in common use long after it was no longer legally required, but I will need citations for that also. I will update this answer with all of that when I can.