"Ireland" and "the Republic Of Ireland" are both acceptable names for the State in which I live. I accept that the term "Ireland" can be confusing when you're jumping between referring to the population of the whole island of Ireland pre-1922 and the population of the Irish Free State/ State of Ireland post-1922. It might have been better to use the term "Republic of Ireland" there or just "the Republic" since it would be clear from the context which Republic you were referring to. The term "Southern Ireland" (the name which was to have been given to the counties outside Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act 1920) is unacceptable as it is seen as a reflection on the independence of the Irish State/Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin supporters tend to use the terms "the Six Counties" and "the Twenty Six Counties" for Northern Ireland and Ireland/Republic of Ireland in order to deny the legitimacy of both. A geographical term occasionally used by British commentators which really gets up the noses of most Irish people is "the British Isles" as it is seen as a claim of British sovereignty over the whole island of Ireland. "These islands" is an acceptable substitute but perhaps not so clear to anyone living outside these islands? The term IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) has been proposed but hasn't really caught on!
I prefer "the Republic of Ireland" but I concede the argument sometimes made, as I explained, that the country is, according to the Constitution, called "Ireland". Sinn Féin tends to use "the north of Ireland" though Michelle O'Neill has occasionally used "Northern Ireland" recently, whether by accident or design. Personally I think getting upset about "the British Isles" as a geographical term is a little bit sensitive, since I don't know of any serious British claim to sovereignty over the whole of Ireland any more, the term dates at least from the 16th century and has etymological roots in the 1st century AD, but there we are. I try not to use Ulster for Northern Ireland in a formal or written context.
Eliot, I'd be VERY disappointed in you if you used the term "Ulster" to describe Northern Ireland. As I'm sure you're well aware (with your Scots ancestry), the historic Province of Ulster contains nine counties, six of which are in Northern Ireland and the remaining three (Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan) are in the Republic. Yes, Sinn Féin have recently begun to use the term "the north of Ireland" as a less offensive term to Unionists (they hope), without conceding the legitimacy of Northern Ireland. I expect you know the history of the Ireland/Republic of Ireland dichotomy. When De Valera drafted and had enacted the 1937 Constitution (replacing the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State), he wanted to keep alive the concept of External Association, which he had first put forward in the Treaty negotiations of 1921. This was that Ireland would be a Republic but would recognise the King as Head of the Commonwealth. Essentially, the idea was that Ireland would be a republic within the Commonwealth. The UK was not prepared at that time to accept that such a thing was possible. Years later, this idea was accepted when India became a republic in 1950, while remaining in the Commonwealth. The 1937 Constitution established a state with all the attributes of a republic (e.g. an elected Head of State) without declaring it to be a republic. In the 1940s, De Valera was subjected to much mockery about whether or not the state was a republic. On one occasion, he brought a dictionary into the Dáil in order to prove that the state was in practical terms a republic (which lead to more mockery!). It was the Fine Gael-lead government of 1948-51 which passed the Republic of Ireland Act 1949 which declared the state to be a republic, but strangely did not attempt to amend the constitution to this effect. In my view, this was a historic error which eliminated a possible bridge to reconciliation with Northern Ireland.
I think we can get too hung-up on these things. "Ulster", while of course not synonymous with Northern Ireland, has been used as an informal equivalent since the 1920s and I don't see that it's the most critical hill to die on. As for Sinn Féin, my view is either one cares what they call Northern Ireland or one doesn't: if not, then fine; if one does, then their using any term except "Northern Ireland" is noxious because they are denying its legal and official title. I don't much mind, though I think Michelle O'Neill as first minister should now observe formalities, as should SF ministers. I would not look kindly on UK ministers referring to Ireland as "the Free State", so, mutatis mutandis.
On the head of state/head of the Commonwealth issue, I understand why the British government was initially reluctant, because in legal and constitutional terms it was then a novelty and is still slightly tricky to fit into familiar conceptual frameworks. In terms of reconciliation with Northern Ireland, I think the original text of Articles 2 and 3 was a much greater obstacle.
"Ireland" and "the Republic Of Ireland" are both acceptable names for the State in which I live. I accept that the term "Ireland" can be confusing when you're jumping between referring to the population of the whole island of Ireland pre-1922 and the population of the Irish Free State/ State of Ireland post-1922. It might have been better to use the term "Republic of Ireland" there or just "the Republic" since it would be clear from the context which Republic you were referring to. The term "Southern Ireland" (the name which was to have been given to the counties outside Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act 1920) is unacceptable as it is seen as a reflection on the independence of the Irish State/Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin supporters tend to use the terms "the Six Counties" and "the Twenty Six Counties" for Northern Ireland and Ireland/Republic of Ireland in order to deny the legitimacy of both. A geographical term occasionally used by British commentators which really gets up the noses of most Irish people is "the British Isles" as it is seen as a claim of British sovereignty over the whole island of Ireland. "These islands" is an acceptable substitute but perhaps not so clear to anyone living outside these islands? The term IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) has been proposed but hasn't really caught on!
I prefer "the Republic of Ireland" but I concede the argument sometimes made, as I explained, that the country is, according to the Constitution, called "Ireland". Sinn Féin tends to use "the north of Ireland" though Michelle O'Neill has occasionally used "Northern Ireland" recently, whether by accident or design. Personally I think getting upset about "the British Isles" as a geographical term is a little bit sensitive, since I don't know of any serious British claim to sovereignty over the whole of Ireland any more, the term dates at least from the 16th century and has etymological roots in the 1st century AD, but there we are. I try not to use Ulster for Northern Ireland in a formal or written context.
Eliot, I'd be VERY disappointed in you if you used the term "Ulster" to describe Northern Ireland. As I'm sure you're well aware (with your Scots ancestry), the historic Province of Ulster contains nine counties, six of which are in Northern Ireland and the remaining three (Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan) are in the Republic. Yes, Sinn Féin have recently begun to use the term "the north of Ireland" as a less offensive term to Unionists (they hope), without conceding the legitimacy of Northern Ireland. I expect you know the history of the Ireland/Republic of Ireland dichotomy. When De Valera drafted and had enacted the 1937 Constitution (replacing the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State), he wanted to keep alive the concept of External Association, which he had first put forward in the Treaty negotiations of 1921. This was that Ireland would be a Republic but would recognise the King as Head of the Commonwealth. Essentially, the idea was that Ireland would be a republic within the Commonwealth. The UK was not prepared at that time to accept that such a thing was possible. Years later, this idea was accepted when India became a republic in 1950, while remaining in the Commonwealth. The 1937 Constitution established a state with all the attributes of a republic (e.g. an elected Head of State) without declaring it to be a republic. In the 1940s, De Valera was subjected to much mockery about whether or not the state was a republic. On one occasion, he brought a dictionary into the Dáil in order to prove that the state was in practical terms a republic (which lead to more mockery!). It was the Fine Gael-lead government of 1948-51 which passed the Republic of Ireland Act 1949 which declared the state to be a republic, but strangely did not attempt to amend the constitution to this effect. In my view, this was a historic error which eliminated a possible bridge to reconciliation with Northern Ireland.
I think we can get too hung-up on these things. "Ulster", while of course not synonymous with Northern Ireland, has been used as an informal equivalent since the 1920s and I don't see that it's the most critical hill to die on. As for Sinn Féin, my view is either one cares what they call Northern Ireland or one doesn't: if not, then fine; if one does, then their using any term except "Northern Ireland" is noxious because they are denying its legal and official title. I don't much mind, though I think Michelle O'Neill as first minister should now observe formalities, as should SF ministers. I would not look kindly on UK ministers referring to Ireland as "the Free State", so, mutatis mutandis.
On the head of state/head of the Commonwealth issue, I understand why the British government was initially reluctant, because in legal and constitutional terms it was then a novelty and is still slightly tricky to fit into familiar conceptual frameworks. In terms of reconciliation with Northern Ireland, I think the original text of Articles 2 and 3 was a much greater obstacle.