Talk:Guernsey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Colon in link

I tried removing the colon in the "National Holiday" link a while back for two reasons:

1. None of the other headings there have colons after them
2. Without the colon within the link, it points to a valid page. With it there, it does not.

This get reverted by Boffin. I'm not going to put it back as I'm sure there must be a good reason there and I hate the idea of edit wars, but I would like to solicit other people's opinions on this. There are three choices are far as I can see - does anyone have any comments or opinions on this:

1. Leave as is with the colon within the link brackets
2. Take the colon out of the link brackets but leave it there in the table
3. Remove the colon altogether (this is my personal opinion)

-- Darkhorse 00:07, 2003 Nov 13 (UTC)

Looking at the Edit History, you caught Boffin in the middle of a flurry of editing and (s)he didn't merge the conflict properly. I'd suggest redoing your edit and only if (s)he reverts it again, suspect foul play. -- Darac 20:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good point, and something that I'd not noticed. I'll put it back for the moment and watch future actions. Of course, anyone is welcome to add their opinion here and I will take it into account completely. -- Darkhorse 21:03, 2003 Nov 13 (UTC)

Edit check

I've just editied a few details (acceptance of sterling currency, language, animal) and fixed the table formatting. But I'm very new to wikiing plus I've spent all day writing so my word-producing glands are kind of tired, so feel free to de-edit me. N3d 18:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry - your edit was fine. Welcome!

James F. (talk) 23:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Offer of pictures

I could contribute a picture or two of Guernsey, if you think that would be appropriate. I took some during my recent visit, including some nice shots from a private plane. Taken by myself, so no copyright problem.

Norb 20:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guernsey and the UK

Is their a sense in which the UK is itself is a crown dependency? Or: is there another sense in which Guernsey might have co-equal status with the UK? Laurel Bush 16:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

This bit should be removed or updated as Guernsey's not park of the UK. "This said, Guernsey is statistically the sunniest place in the UK."

I notice that the above line has been changed to: "This said, if Guernsey were part of the United Kingdom, it would be statistically the sunniest place in the region." Not only does this not really make any sense but I can't find any evidence to suggest that it is true. Unless anyone has a reference to the contrary I suggest that this line is removed from the article. Blacknightshade 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And if Guernsey were part of Norway... I've updated the weather from Guernsey Met with actual sunshine stats to replace the offending statement. Man vyi 07:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bailiwick or Guernsey

I think that there are two different things going on here.

I think that the Bailiwick and Guernsey-taken-alone should have separate articles, as this leads to confusion.--MacRusgail 13:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it would certainly be clearer for the innocent reader. I did a double-take the first time I spotted that, per List of countries by highest point, Guernsey's highest point is in Sark. And an earlier version of this here article stated that Guernsey had a railway and two airports, which was a trifle misleading for those not familiar with Guernsey's quasi-federal system. Bailiwick of Guernsey currently redirects; I'd support having one article for an overview of the Bailiwick and another for the Island of Guernsey. Man vyi 14:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see another source of confusion, the box listing "parishes of Guernsey" - if we're talking Bailiwick, Sark and Alderney are included, if Isle of Guernsey, than they're not. --MacRusgail 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New Lt Gov

Biographical info on new Lieutenant Governor from Guernsey Press here Man vyi 11:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Guernsey not Sarnia?

From the article, I see "It was formerly thought that the Island's original name was Sarnia, but recent research shows that to have been the Latin name for Sark.".

Could we have a reference for this, please? I've never heard of this before; it's certainly not common knowledge, even in the Islands, and I can't find a link on the web so far ... so although it sounds reasonable, I tend to doubt it.

It was added here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guernsey&diff=29593232&oldid=29592687 by a non-logged-in user 62.31.87.10 who appears to make useful edits ... YojimboSan 10:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's probably from Lepelley's Noms de lieux de Normandie, (René Lepelley, 1999 Paris ISBN 2862532479), although Coates' The Ancient and Modern Names of the Channel Islands (Richard Coates, 1991 Stamford ISBN 187161516X) comes down for Sarnia originally referring to Herm, and Lisia or Lesia being Guernsey. Man vyi 11:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The non-logged in user is me prior to signing up, and it's something that surfaces in the GEP every so often. James Marr's History of Guernsey(July 16, 1982, Phillimore & Co Ltd ISBN: 0850334594) refers to it as well, I think, but don't have my copy to hand. Mon Vier 21/03/06

Lepelley actually (now I have my copy to hand) comes down in favour of Guernsey being Caesarea - or rather Caesia (the green one) - and Sarmia (corrupted as Sarnia) being Alderney. The Sark=Sarnia hypothesis must be the one involving the 'Sargia' variant, but whose name to put to it eludes me without recourse to a library. All this depends on how one reads the Antonine Itinerary. Between us, we probably should have a go at laying out the tangled web of CI historical toponymy in the Channel Islands article. Man vyi 19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair do's. I'll have a mooch in the Guille-Alles tomorrow, if I get the chance. Mon Vier 21/03/06

Thanks for your attention, guys. It might be nice to start a new page to hold the details of the various references and to address the disagreements; and to link it in from each of the Islands' pages. The respective Sociétés would probably have interesting viewpoints, too. If you want a hand, drop me a line. YojimboSan 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've summarised various theories on the Latin names question over at nrm:Îles d'la Manche for those who are interested. Man vyi 10:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that page Man vyi, it's nice to see some clear references. It would be nice to see it in English as well, but Jèrriais doesn't seem to be too difficult to read :-) I'm still not clear how the Antonine Itinerary relates, though; I can't see any Channel Islands references in the online version linked from the wikipedia page. YojimboSan 02:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a merge on the Antonine Itinerary which was giving a rather Britanno-centric impression. The linked online extract only covers roads in Britain. The islands are in the part called the Maritime Itinerary that gives the sea routes. Man vyi 05:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

User 80.229.238.161 made the following comment in place of the coat of arms image in the main article. I have reverted the article and moved the comment here.

"The Coat of arms is wrong; it is differenced from the arms of Jersey (and England) by the addition of a sprig. See, for example <www.ngw.nl/int/cha/guernsey.htm>."

I leave someone else to update the image if appropriate. TrevorD 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

He's right, even if it's not the best way to go about it. The arms need a sprig. Mon Vier 00:21 30 April 2006

User 62.147.18.123 has also made a similar comment:

Please note that the Coat of Arms opposite is incorrect. It should have a sprig of leaves on top to distinguish it from the otherwise identical arms of Jersey and of England. A correct image can be found at, inter alia, http://monedasybilletes.iespana.es/images/escguern.jpg.

Again, altho' correct, the comment is not in an appropriate place, so I've again removed it. TrevorD 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If no-one else can manage to dig up a correct image of the CoA, I've provided the best non-copyvio version I have to hand. Somebody please replace it with a better image asap. Merci bian! Man vyi 09:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

References

I note that this article doesn't have a references section. Could I request that the main contributors add in their citations? Thanks, Walkerma 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Economy

The Economic section states there's a several million pound "black hole" but does not explain its meaning. Could this be expanded upon? Kinglag 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

as from 2008 we will not be taxing companies, we will then have a big tax shortfall to cover. the states of guernsey are running around trying to find ways to fill in this £4000000 per year without taxing us normal people to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.131.20 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 November 2006‎

Sport - comment moved from article

moved by User:Man vyi 08:13, 9 October 2006‎

Statement from local: Sharna Lowery. I find it horrible that my homeland can't patisapate in the home nations as it own and top athletic people FROM OUR COUNTRY have to benifete by joining the U.K. Why can't the Channel Isles be premmittede to enter the Home Nations, as the CHANNEL ISLES. We could have athletes from Guernsey, Jersey, Sark, Alderney and Herm. And repersent like that sure we might not stand a chance but at least we can have the pride of knowing that Channel Isles is standing on its own and competing in the national games. I don't know if i speak for all but i know i am speaking for me, my family and friends.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon Wolf (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 October 2006‎

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:24 (UTC)

Economy

Moved from article. This comment refers to the first paragraph in the economy section. Tra (Talk) 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph above contains a misinterpretion. The government of Guernsey does not finance its spending by printing money ("interest free" or otherwise). Guernsey notes and coins do exist, but they are not some special way of financing government spending. Taxes are lower in Guernsey than in the United Kingdom because government spending in Guernsey is lower, as a percentage of the economy, than it is in the United Kingdom. Before World War Two taxes and government spending in Guernsey were a lot lower than they are now.

The paragraph below it was added separately: Tra (Talk) 21:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph above contains misinformation. Printing their own debt-free money is the best economic option for any government. Central banks are private institutions and a curse for any country. Guernsey enjoys a high-quality level of life cause they were smart enough not to have a central bank. Every country should follow its example. The Bank of England is not a "private institution" and has not been since 1946. And Guernsey does NOT finance government spending by printing money "debt-free" money or otherwise. In fact such a claim is closer to the example of the United Kingdom or the United States where the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve buy government debt with money they create ("printing" is not the normal method). This is NOT the case in Guernsey91.107.74.222 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Guernsey to discuss severing link with UK

I wonder if people have seen this article - Guernsey to discuss severing link with UK. The Telegraph is claiming that the States is considering severing what links it has with the UK, and possibly federating with Jersey (probably the most sensible option in some ways). Presumably Guernsey would retain the English monarchy, but fall into a dominion type position. --MacRusgail 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's horrible! It would make much more sense for them to actually BECOME part of the UK than severe links with it! I hope nothing so ridiculous comes about but in any case the UK government will hopefully not stand for an independent Guernsey. Islands off the coast of England should be part of the UK just like islands off the coast of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are.123.3.40.112 10:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Guernsey isn't an island of the coast of England, it's an island off the coast of France. Moreover, for 800 years we've had much the same de facto independence as Australia or Canada have now, with a few extra links in foreign policy and defence. Mon Vier 11:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the IOM and the Channel Islands, are not quite as "independent" as they'd like to think. Witness the destruction of their indigenous languages, and their media, which is largely British based now. --MacRusgail 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In Scotland and Wales, with increased autonomy, support for Gaelic and Welsh has only increased. But the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands governments, which have been autonomous for so many years, have not supported their languages. For example, there are no Manx-medium schools, or Jerrais-medium schools. There is no Norman French TV station. The Channel Islands apparently have a few hundred speakers of their languages left, but how much are these people supported by any investment in education for their children in the languages? But in Scotland the government has invested considerably in resources for Gaelic speakers, for example. The Channel Islands governments and the Isle of Man government are not controlled by the UK in their policies towards their native speakers. 88.109.70.252 05:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's one Manx medium school. L'Office du Jèrriais is funded by the States of Jersey and provides education services in Jersey schools. A Jèrriais medium school is a long term aim, but the immediate priority is the implementation of the TGJ (GCSE equivalent in Jèrriais). Of course, much more could be done but "tchi p'tit m'donne veurt qué j'vive" (every little helps)! Man vyi 06:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to come round to the idea of Guernsey and Jersey joining the United Kingdom as constituent countries of the United Kingdom with devolved integration (same parliaments as they have now just representation in the UK parliament as well). This would put them on equal footing with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Isle of Man could do the same. What do you think? To me unity is far better than seperation and it would be great to have all the British Nations together! :) YourPTR! 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that? Alternatively, and just as realistically, the UK could leave the EU, join the Bailiwick of Jersey and have the same status as the Minquiers and Écréhous! And I suppose you haven't noticed that today is Liberation Day in the Bailiwicks and therefore hardly the most appropriate day to suggest people should give up their freedom? Man vyi 12:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with becoming a constituent country of the UK is that we would then have to do what Parliament says. That is not, to my mind, a good thing. Furthermore, we have quite a bit of political clout as separate entities -far our of proportion to our size and population. If we joined in the UK parliamentary system, we'd have about the same status and influence as Cardiff Central or Chipping Sodbury South. Mon Vier 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are already all sorts of areas where the Westminster parliament cannot legislate for Scotland (especially), Wales and Northern Ireland because those matters are devolved. A similar set-up could give Guernsey a direct input in the British parliament without the States necessarily losing that much power over internal affairs. Not that it's been proposed but I actually can see a lot of advantages. Esquimo 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked informations directly to the government. They have sent me 4 files that I copy here:

1 - It would be quite wrong to suggest that Guernsey’s currently favourable economic position is in any way as a direct result of the Guernsey note issue. I estimate that the value of the note issue to the Exchequer is of the order of £1.5 million per annum which equates to about 1% of States Revenues, the main source of revenue being income tax levied on earnings of individuals and companies.

The benefit of the note issue is that the value of the total amount in circulation amounts, in effect, to an interest free loan from the holders of banknotes to the Exchequer. The value to the Guernsey Exchequer is therefore no different from the benefit derived by any other independent note issuing authority.

It is essential to understand that Guernsey does not have its own monetary system but is part of the United Kingdom system. Bank of England notes are legal tender in Guernsey and circulate alongside Guernsey notes. The total withdrawal of Guernsey notes would not have any economic effect on the Island as they would simply be replace by Bank of England notes. The local Exchequer would however lose about 1% of its income which would either mean that less public expenditure could be afforded, or a relatively small increase in taxation would be required.

The circulation of Guernsey notes does not affect inflation because Guernsey does not have a monetary system of its own. The existence of Guernsey notes therefore means that less Bank of England notes circulate in the Island than would otherwise be necessary.

One of the main reasons for Guernsey’s current ability to have relatively low rates of indirect taxation is that as a matter of policy the Government (The States of Guernsey) does not borrow for public purposes (other than in respect of self financing activities, ie electricity, etc). This policy means that all taxes raised are available for public purposes and interest receipts augment taxation receipts.

There are currently many desirable projects for capital expenditure within the Island that cannot be afforded if our policy of not borrowing is to be upheld. If the States of Guernsey were to decide that those projects should go ahead, and were also unwilling to raise taxes by the level necessary, then Guernsey would have no alternative but to borrow with a consequent future liability to repay both interest and principal on the debt. In such circumstances the Guernsey note issue would certainly not provide any additional income to that currently available.”

Extract from correspondence on “Value of Guernsey note issue”

2 - Options may differ as to the exact legal status of Guernsey’s currency but for all practical purpose it can be regarded as sterling. Thus:

¨ Bank of England notes and coins are legal tender here and are accepted by all businesses and banks alongside our own issue:

¨ our note issue is the debt of the States of Guernsey denominated in sterling, and;

¨ in accounting for and recording transactions, assets and liabilities, no distinction is made between UK currency and Guernsey currency (except, of course, where businesses such as clearing banks may need to keep a separate record for their own internal purposes of States of Guernsey notes and Bank of England notes held).

It follows that there is no “exchange rate” between Guernsey currency and sterling; they are the same currency. Similarly, mechanisms to maintain parity are not needed. However, it should be said the Guernsey notes are neither legal tender in the UK nor are they generally acceptable. Furthermore, UK banks may make a charge for changing Guernsey notes for Bank of England notes, although this represents the cost incurred by the bank in returning the notes to Guernsey to obtain value, rather than an exchange rate.

Extract from correspondence on “Legal Tender Status”

3 - GUERNSEY CURRENCY ISSUE

Guernsey uses sterling as its currency and issues its own notes and coins denominated in sterling. The issue is a debt of the States of Guernsey and is backed by the General Revenue investments of the States.

Guernsey notes and coins are legal tender in the Island but not outside, where their acceptability is limited. Bank of England notes and UK Treasury coins are also legal tender in Guernsey and circulate alongside the Guernsey issue.

In common with other currency issues, the value of the total amount of Guernsey notes and coins in circulation is, in effect, an interest free loan from the holders, which may be invested for the benefit of the exchequer, the income being known as seigniorage. The circulation of Guernsey notes and coins is approximately £30 million, currently earning around £1 million per annum.

The first issue of Guernsey notes was in 1816 and was of considerable benefit to the Island by helping to finance large States projects. However, the States of Guernsey currency is now issued to local banks on demand in the conventional manner, for which the banks pay face value.

4 - STATES OF GUERNSEY NOTE ISSUE

The Markets were the first public work of any magnitude to be financed by means of a note issue, though States’ notes had been issued for other purposes at an earlier date. The issue of States’ notes was first mooted some years before the acquisition and improvement of the Markets was first thought of, for on 24 May 1811 the States were invited to appoint a Committee to consider, inter alia, the advisability of issuing States’ notes; but this met with little encouragement, for on 14 November 1811 the Committee reported that they were unanimously of the opinion that the proposal was of doubtful propriety, and as a result the States decided “d’abandonner entierement le projet d’emettre des dires billets.”

In 1815 the need for improving the Public Market (at that time an open one) was beginning to be felt, and the States appointed a Committee to consider the matter. This Committee reported on 29 October 1816, making recommendations for the acquisition of property and the erection of a covered Market, and recommended as a means of furnishing the wherewithal to carry out this project, the issue of States’ notes to the value of £6,000.

The arguments put forward at this time in favour of States’ issue are interesting, and the following is a rough translation of an extract from the Committee’s report: -

“The Committee recommends that the expense should be met by the issue of States’ notes of £1 sterling to the value of £6,000, of which the issue will be simple, and will not offer the least difficulty when the expenditure and receipts are taken into consideration, and that these notes will be available not only for the payment of the New Market, but also of Torteval Church, roads to construct, and other expenses of the States, and above all when one considers that the banks already have their notes in circulation for more than £50,000, whereas it is now proposed to restrict the States’ issue to £6,000. The notes to be printed on the best paper, expressly manufactured with the word ‘States’ in the paper (watermark?), and from a plate engraved by the best artist, each note numbered and bearing the signature of three men well known to the Island; the risk of forgery is nothing to fear, as no one would go to the expense and risk of counterfeiting with so little hope of success.

In this manner it appears easy to provide a permanent revenue to the States, sufficient not only to provide for the purchase and erection of the Market, but also to create an amortisation fund to extinguish the debt of the States”.

The proposal was, however, rejected, not apparently on account of objection to the financial policy proposed, but because the acquisition of the Markets was not deemed desirable.

The First Issue

On 17 October 1816, the first issue of States’ notes was authorised, for a sum of £4,000, for coast preservation works, Torteval Church, and Jerbourg Monument. These notes were issued subject to redemption, in three stages, on 15 April 1817, and every Saturday thereafter; 15 October 1817, and 15 April 1818, and not for reissue.

The Committee’s report recommending this issue states: “In this manner, without increasing the debt of the States, it will be possible to finish these works, leaving sufficient money in the exchequer for other needs”.

It is also interesting to note that at that time the Supervisor must have been a very much occupied person, as the Bailiff in his remark says … “The Supervisor and the members of the Court generally have already too much to do to impose upon them the work of issue”, and it was recommended and adopted that this be entrusted to a Committee, of three ‘personnes de confiance’ exclusively charged with this duty who will pay on the order of the Supervisor, and receive them back, when paid in, from the Receiver of Impot, for cancellation.

The Supervisor of that time with this revenue and expenditure of £14,000 odd was too busy to issue and to attend to the cancellation of £4,000 worth of notes. The Supervisor of today, however, with a revenue and expenditure for which he is responsible amounting to millions, as well as a multitude of other things besides, has to find time for an issue of some £300,000.

In October 1918, a further attempt was made to acquire the site and to construct the Markets to be financed by means of a note issue, but again with failure, and it was not until May 1920, that the Committee, faint yet pursuing, met with success, and were authorised to issue States’ notes to the value of £4,500 for the markets, redeemable in 10 years, out of Impot duties and the revenue butchers’ shops.

Increase to £10,000

This issue was quickly followed by others, and in September 1821, the Finance Committee reported that there were, other than notes for the markets, £5,300 notes in circulation, and the States accepted the recommendation of that Committee that this number could be increased to £10,000 without danger, as the most advantageous method of meeting the debt, both to the States finance and the public, who, far from being adverse to taking such notes, seek them eagerly.

The Markets were opened in October 1822, and there is a legend that in the course of the ceremony the Bailiff, Mr Daniel de Lisle Brock – destroyed by fire a number of cancelled notes which had served in its erection. Reference, however, to three newspapers – the “Star”, the “Gazette”, and the “Mercure” made no reference to this ritual which, therefore, I think, must be regarded legendary.

In 1824 a further £5,000 was authorised for the Markets, and in March 1826, the Finance Committee was authorised to increase the issue up to a total of £20,000, so to enable the erection of Elizabeth College and certain parochial schools to be carried out.

In May 1826, the issue of a series of £5 notes was authorised.

In every case the States were most careful in the issue, signature and cancellation of notes, and the impot of wines and spirits was there guarantee.

By 1829 the States’ note issue in circulation exceeded £48,000 and in 1837 over £55,000 were in circulation, and in the Billets d’Etats frequent references are made by eminent men of those times that had it not been for the issue of the States’ notes important public works, such as roads and buildings, could not have been carried out, and this was done without interest costs to the Island, the result being that the influx of visitors was increased, commerce was stimulated, and the prosperity of the Island vastly improved.

For the first ten years or so after the first notes were issued, no opposition seems to have been encountered, but in 1826 certain members of the States, some of them members of the Finance Committee, considered that the consent of the King in Council should be obtained for capital works, contending that the financing of such works by note issue was contrary to the Order in Council of 1819…”that the States’ should not exceed the amount of their annual income without Royal Consent.”

That fine patriot, Daniel de Lisle Brock, spiritedly contested this opposition in his comments published in the Billet d’État for 22 November 1826, with the result that the proposition to refer the matter to Council was defeated.

Three years later, the same opponents to the note issue receiving no support from the States, laid their complaint before Privy Council, which, in turn, was referred by the Privy Council to the States, asking for an explanation. The States appointed the Finance Committee to draft a reply, and there answer is published in the Billet for 23 December 1829, a masterpiece worthy of study, and this seems to be the last heard of the matter.

In 1827 the Old Bank was founded, followed by the Commercial Bank in 1830, and both Banks circulated their own notes, and the Island seems to have been flooded with paper money, so much that in September 1836, the matter was submitted to the consideration of the States, and again the Bailiff – Daniel de Lisle Brock – makes a strong appeal to the States in Favour of the right of the States to issue notes being supreme to that of the Banks, and a Committee was noted to confer with the Banks and to defend the rights and interests of the States and the community, so that the circulation of States’ noted shall not be prejudiced.

From the reports of the debate one would have imagined that the result would have been that the private issue of the Bank would have been withdrawn; but the truth was stranger than fiction, for the result was an agreement between the States and the Banks that the former should withdraw £15,000 worth of their notes and that in future their issue should not exceed £40,000.

This agreement remained in force up till the outbreak of was in 1914, when the States’ notes in circulation valued £41,206.

Only Attempt at Forgery

As far as I’m aware, only one attempt at forgery was made, namely in 1895. The forgery, however, was very crude and soon to be discovered by Mr Le Messurier, of the Old Bank. As a result, however, the whole note issue was withdrawn and replaced by a new issue, which we used to know as “greenbacks”.

Immediately following the outbreak of war, the demand for money was such that the Royal Court passed on Ordinance making the States’ notes and those of the Banks legal tender, and limiting the issues of the Banks to that at the moment in circulation, the result being that the States then got their own back on the banks as their issue was unlimited, and the demand was so great that the notes had to be printed in Guernsey to keep things going, and both the Star Company and the Guernsey Press Company did remarkably good work in turning out at very short service and very notice very serviceable 5/- and 10/- notes respectively; and I well remember the hectic time that we had at the Office in keeping pace with the demand. As supplies on special watermarked paper could be obtained in England, these temporary notes where withdrawn and replaced. The note issue of the States rose to £142,000 at 31st December 1918.

The next evening of importance was in 1921, when the currency was changed to British Sterling, and as new notes could be obtained in time existing issues were over-printed with the word “British”.

Advantage was taken of this change of currency necessitating a new note to make same of more convenient size; but it is interesting to note that the same firm that printed the first issues is still today supplying us with our requirements, viz.- Messrs Perkins, Bacon and Co.

It will have been notice that at first States’ notes were signed by “three gentlemen of the repute”, later reduced to two. Subsequently two Jurats of the Royal Court were authorised to sign. In January 1921, these signatures were dispensed with and a facsimile of the Supervisor’s signature was authorised with the actual signature of either the States Accountant or the States Cashier.

Later the States decided that, with other safeguards, which, for obvious reasons, cannot be made public, the printed facsimile of the signature of the Treasurer of the States would suffice.

From 1918 onwards the States’ note issue continued to increase until at the time of the Occupation there were in circulation £249,478.

Now comes a most interesting feature of our note issue. The Germans arrived and one of their first acts was to declare that German paper money would have legal tender, but strangely enough they took no steps to interfere with our not issue.

Resulting from lack of confidence in German money, coupled with the fact that the public feared that the Banks might be taken over by the Germans, the demand for States’ of Guernsey notes was continuous. So much so that we were placing into the Banks regularly further supplies of new notes, of which, fortunately, there was a large supply in the States coffers. This went on until the end of 1942, and to a very small extent during 1943, until our stock of new notes was exhausted, when the amount of States’ notes in the hands of the public amounted to £433,626. These notes, however, were not actually circulating and it was a rarity to see a States’ note at all. What happened was that the lack of confidence in foreign money had driven our good money underground, and that people were keeping this in their homes rather than entrusting it to the Banks.

In 1941 most of the British Silver which was in circulation had, for the same reason, disappeared, as had also Guernsey and British Copper, and there was an acute shortage of small change. To meet this, authority was sought from the Germans to issue small denomination notes of the values of 6d., 1s.3d., 2s.6d. and 5/-. The first issue amounted to £5,000 but the Germans would only agreed to this issue being put into circulation against the withdrawal of £5,000 worth of Guernsey £1 notes, which had to be handed to them. We did not, however, withdraw these 5,000 notes from actual circulation but we took from our safes notes to this value which were awaiting destruction as being too soiled for further use, and we also took the precaution of having these passed through a printing press printing front and back “withdrawn from circulation”, with the date.

Subsequently, the issue of these small denomination notes was found to be too small as they also, to some extent, were going underground, and authority was obtained for a further issue of 5,000 of these denominations but this time the Germans ordered that we should withdraw from the Banks 5,000 British notes. These, of course, the States had to buy, but again we took the precaution of recording the numbers of all these notes and again over-printing them with the words “withdrawn from ciculation”.

Recently, since the Liberation, 2,000 of these 5,000 British Notes have been discovered in Jersey and returned to us, and these will, in due course, be sent to the Bank of England for cancellation.

Incidentally, I might record that the Bank of England has expressed its appreciation of our caution in recording the numbers and over-printing them as we did.

Actually, we did not stick to the strict order of the Germans limiting the issue of these small denomination notes to £10,000, for we actually issued £11,767.

These notes were printed locally by the Guernsey Press Company, to a design prepared by one of their employees – Mr E W Vaudin – in the first instance on paper bearing the States of Guernsey watermarked which was normally used for States Bonds and Dividend Warrants, and subsequently, when the stock of this paper was exhausted, on a watermarked paper obtained from France.

Later, it was a distinct rarity to find in one’s purse a States of Guernsey note of any denomination at all and German money was practically the sole currency in circulation, though the amount issued by the States was then £433,626.

When the invasion of France occurred we began to visualise the day when we should be relieved, and German currency would no longer be wanted and we should revert to sterling. We then began to wonder as to how we could quickly get rid of the German money and how e would replace it with sterling. This matter was discussed with Mr Le Moal, of the Guernsey Press Company (whose premises, incidentally were then occupied by the Germans) and we went carefully into the stock of French watermarked paper which still existed, and we came to the conclusion that we could print 35, £1 and 10/-d. notes which would give us a sum sufficient to convert what we estimated to be the amount of German currency in circulation. Designs were prepared by Mr Vaudin and there were printed 88,000 10/-d. notes; 171,000 £1 notes and 30,000 £5 notes making a total value of £413,300. These were printed under the very noses of the Germans by the “Press” staff, working at all sorts of odd hours when the Germans were not about, and the Germans remained in total ignorance of this printing. For this the “Press” staff , working at all sorts of odd hours when the Germans were not about, and the Germans remained in total ignorance of this printing. For this the “Press” staff deserve the highest commendation.

We also had prepared the Orders for the “call in” of the German currency, ready for publication in the local papers immediately the Liberation took place, so that when it was announced on May 9th that we were to be liberated everything was prepared, depots had been arranged in the country and the Banks primed, so that immediately Liberation occurred we were able to proceed with the conversion of German Notes into sterling. This came as a matter of extreme surprise to our British Liberation Force and I well remember about half past ten in the morning of our Liberation Force and I well remember about half past ten in the morning of our Liberation, Colonel Power telling us that the Liberating Force had brought with them a large sum of British Notes as they were anxious that the German Notes should be taken out of circulation at the earliest possible moment. The surprise he evinced on hearing that the conversion had actually commenced half-an-hour previously was worth seeing, and further when he heard how we had printed these notes under the noses of the Germans, so as to be ready for this eventuality. I may say that in this matter our action received the highest commendation from the British Authorities.

The amount of Reichsmarks which were converted in that very short time amounted to 3,224,729, equalling in sterling £344,522.6s.6d. As those of you who were here at the time will remember this conversation went off very smoothly and very rapidly, and it was indeed a great pleasure to have sterling again in our purses in place of the filthy German paper to which we had perforce become accustomed. With this conversion issue, together with what was already out, our note issue then amount to £778,148.

Early this year it became apparent that these small denomination notes had served their purpose as the influx of British Silver had taken their place, and consequently these issues were withdrawn from circulation, as were also the notes of £1 and 10/-d. denomination issued prior to 1940, and substituted by our new issues which are now in circulation.

As a result of this calling in and also the fact that confidence in our money and the Banks was again restored, Guernsey notes were returned in fairly big volume, so that the amount of our note issue on the 1st June had been reduced to £256,644 actually in circulation.

To keep a circulation of this amount in being involves a great deal of work, as when notes become dirty or torn they have to be withdrawn from circulation and replaced by others, and cancellation and destruction of the old ones has to be effected. This keeps a small staff engaged wholly on this work all the year round, but the cost of printing new notes for replacement purposes and that of cancellation and destruction amount to less than 1% of the total issue. It will therefore be seen that for the States to maintain their note issue is of great economic value, as were it not for this issue a C Capital Loan of like amount would be required, which could not be raised at anything like such favourable to the States why the issue is not further increased. The answer, of course, is that we cannot put into circulation more money than is demanded by the public. If we were to put out any sum above the public demand this would of course, simply be returned to us through the Banks and we should be no better off.

States Office GUERNSEY 5th June 1946

Fotogian 11:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Timelines history of British Isles

I've created a timeline template of the History of the British Isles. My plan is to put it into that article, like the timelines of Irish State in the Irish states since 1171 article. I'm sure there plenty of mistakes, although I've deliberately left out some states/people for simplicity's sake. The "events" I've added are also obviously "Hiberno-centric", so would like the imput of other's to settle what other events should to be added. General comments are also welcome. Since the table is fairly complicated, if people want leave suggestions for events and things they would like changed on the templates talk page, I'll add them. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are Guernsey and Jersey truly separate?

In the article about the Channel Islands it says the Channel Islands are not a political unit, but it also says that they are remainder of the Duchy of Normandy. Considering the history of Britain, France and Normandy from the 1200s to today, wouldn't this mean that legally, they still constitute one duchy and therefore (at some level) one political unit? Was the Duchy of Normandy ever abolished? And since France went through all those revolutions and is now a republic, then wouldn't that mean, that legally the Channel Islands are the succeeding (and only) Duchy of Normandy since the Duchy in French Normandy was abolished?72.27.29.124 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed project

There is now a proposed project to deal with the crown dependencies of Guernsey, Isle of Man, and Jersey. Anyone interested in taking part should indicate their interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Crown dependencies. Thank you. John Carter 19:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed. It looks like a very good start, and likely an early stage B-class article, but it is insufficiently referenced; not only does it contain very few citations, with most sections unsourced, but there are 'citation needed' tags in the article, which must be addressed prior to GA status. Additionally, there is a 'cleanup' tag in the famous people section that should be taken care of. It would probably be best to move the list to a separate article, and maybe mention a 5 or 6 of the more notable people in prose of a short section.

The lead section could be expanded a bit; it should provide a good, adequate summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information on improving this section.

There's lots of images in the gallery section; perhaps some of these could be sprinkled throughout the article, mainly in sections with no image. Also, be sure that all images have appropriate image copyright tags on them as well, as this is a requirement for GA status.

The parishes section is really just a tabled list, with little actual prose. More information could be provided, such as talking about some of the specific demographics of each parish, which industries or cultures dominate in each, and such,... I would also recommend moving the section into a subsection under geography. The geography section should also have information on the climate as well.

References should include full citation information (e.g. author, title, publisher, date of publication, date of retrieval for web links) so that, if the link disappears and someone wishes to verify its content or pursue further research, the citation is not worthless. See WP:CITE for more information on citations.

These are the major issues with the article; it's probably an incomplete list, but hopefully this will get editors started working towards GA status. Good luck! Dr. Cash 04:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Push for GA Status

Starting a list to direct efforts towards getting this article up to GA. Please strikethrough as you do them, or add further ones you notice at the end of the list. --Mrh30 16:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redraft lead paragraph
• Check copyright status of all images
• Distribute images throughout article.
• Write lead in section for parishes.
• Add climate information to geography section.
• Clean up all citations.

Someone screwed with this page

I don't think this article is about some dude in California, as the opening paragraph states.

Also, I SERIOUSLY doubt that guernsey's motto is what the article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.202.53 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 October 2007‎

I can't find either of those things mentioned in the article. Could you please quote the sentences you're referring to, please? Tra (Talk) 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism already reverted! Thanks. Man vyi 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Better photos needed

The article needs some photographs showing the land or scenery around Guernsey, not just interesting articles & buildings found on the island. -Rolypolyman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there nothing more suitable on Commons? Man vyi (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Guersey/Jersey relationship

I think the article should have some more about the Bailiwick's relationship with Jersey. It refers casually to the rivally between them, but surely there must be some more significant things that could be said. An outsider, such as myself, would assume that the Channel Islands are part of the same administrative group, and it is a surprise to find that this is not so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceDragon64 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Guernsey/Archive 1! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed guideline for "the British Isles"

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

pronounciation?

Not at all familiar with this topic, I was hoping that there would be a phonetic guide to pronouncing at the beginning. Could someone oblige? 71.110.136.218 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Duke of Normandy

Shouldn't that be Duchess? 122.57.185.114 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No. See Channel Islands or Duke of Normandy. Man vyi (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Parishes should be nouns, not genitive nouns. e.g. St Andrew, not St Andrew's

Those who believe it should be St Andrew's may see this as a shortened form of 'Parish of St Andrew'. But 'St Andrew's' does not imply reference to the parish thereof.

States of Guernsey website does not use the genitives.

I think the apostrophe - s should be removed from the parishes which are susceptible to this problem. e.g. St Martin's should become St Martin.

One could title the individual pages 'Parish of Saint Martin', for example, which would avoid the ugly use of the ambiguous genitive.

What do you all think?

As6782 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Total Rubbiah and you are obviously from England. Our island call OUR parishes by their French derivatives. St Martins and St Andrews etc. Using your rationale, St Peter Port would be St Peters-Port denoting posession. It's not might fault eh guerney website is written by a bunch of economic immagrant Eng-er-landers. \Go home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.215.253 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Steady on there, mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with As6782 (and before you start, whoever you are, I'm a donkey). 'Parish of St Martin' is a literal translation of 'Paroisse de Saint Martin' and so is appropriate. Before you start hurling abuse at people for not using French derivatives, you might like to try learning some French and learning a little about the history of our island. Mon Vier (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, St Peter Port is "Saint Pierre Port" in French, not "Saint Pierre du Port". Mon Vier (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Mon Vier, "St Peter's Port" would be "Port de Saint Pierre" in French, not the other way round (French genitives work the other way round to English ones). But I take your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.85.180.34 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but I'd always understood that the parish took it's name from the church, which is 'St Peter of the Port', rather the parish being 'the Port of St Peter'. However, I'm not entirely sure on that point and you may well be right! Mon Vier (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Channel Island Churches (McCormack, Chichester 1986), Duke William donated the church Sancti Petri de Portu Maris to Marmoutier around 1048. Man vyi (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Humorous and Satirical Essays

In his Wikipedia article, the 'essays' of AA Gill (the Sunday Times' restaurant reviewer and television critic) are described as being 'known for their humour and satirical content'. In one of the more well known of those humorous and satirical essays in the Sunday Times writer, AA Gill, said Channel Islanders "lay on their backs and made moaning noises" when the Germans arrived, and saying they were "... hanging out the white flags and profiteering".See this No reference is made to this statement in the article and all attempts to include it have been reverted, referring editors to the talk page. I have commented on the talk page, as requested, but here has been no response. You may have a view on this too. If so, please comment on AA Gill:Talk. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that they're terribly relevant - Gill is a restaurant critic, not an historian. If an historian made comments to the effect that Channel Islanders could have put up more of a fight, that would be worthy of inclusion. As it is, the comments are hyperbolic and emotive, with little to back them up. In any case, the comments would be better placed in the article on the German Occupation of the Channel Islands. Mon Vier (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hauteville House: Embassy or museum (or both)?

• In "Politics," eighth paragraph: The French Consulate is based at Victor Hugo's former residence at Hauteville House.
• In "Culture," second paragraph: Victor Hugo wrote some of his best-known works while in exile in Guernsey, including Les Misérables. His home in St. Peter Port, Hauteville House, is now a museum administered by the city of Paris.

It is both? Not even the article on the house itself says anything about the consulate being there. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I took this photo of the consular sign at Hauteville House. Man vyi (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Both. Consul Honoraire à Guernesey - Hauteville House Man vyi (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

UK.. confused

After reading about Heather Watson in this article in The Guardian, I came here to refresh my memory about the status of Guernsey vis-a-vis the UK. The Guardian article makes note of her being both British and from the UK, as well as from Guernsey. Whether she has some claim to mainland UK nationality through a parent or residency I know not, but the info boxes on her Wiki page say "Guernsey, UK". The article here alludes to the fact that UK immigration law applies on Guernsey, but is at pains to point out that Guernsey is not part of the UK. What's the deal? Phelbasar (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Guernsey is not part of the UK; but often sporting associations are part of British federations. Sportspeople from Guernsey are eligible to compete for the UK or any of the Home Nations. Frankly, I wouldn't rely on the Guardian for constitutional info! Man vyi (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was more referring to the validity of the infobox listing her nationality (not sporting association) as "Guernsey, UK". Is this standard in infoboxes for people from Guernsey? Phelbasar (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no separate "Guernsey nationality". There is no Guernsey nationality law. The law which applies is the United Kingdom's British Nationality Act 1981 (formallly, "as extended to the Island(s) by Order-in-Council).

People from any of the Crown Dependencies within the British Islands are full British Citizens. Guersney people may have their passports issued in London, and people from London (if they happen to be in the Island at the time of application) can have their passports issued in St Peter Port. The only distinction which exists (which is of little practical consequence) is that a minority of people from the Crown Dependencies have restricted EU free movement rights, under the provisions of Protocol 3 to the treaty of Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelroberts (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL FICTION ON GUERNSEY

A recent fiction book that could be added to the list that includes RACHEL'S SHOE is THE GUERNSEY LITERARY AND POTATO PEEL PIE SOCIETY by Mary Ann Shaffer and Annie Barrows. A wonderful book also about the German occupation during WWII.74.207.36.218 (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)M.Davis 4/2010

pronunciation

Are the people there rhotic? I suggest that the phonetic representation should be RP and therefore not rhotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion

details pleaseandycjp (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Guernsey (Bailiwick

The introduction to the article is fundamentally incorrect and needs revising.

"Guernsey" and "Bailiwick of Guernsey" are two quite different things although all a. The 1949 Interpretation Law may assist in understanding the difference.

The "Bailiwick of Guernsey" is NOT a Crown Dependency. In fact it is a collection of THREE Crown Dependencies, "Guernsey", "Alderney" and "Sark", each of which have their own Government and primary legislatures.

In this context, "Guernsey" or "the Island of Guernsey" is used to mean either (colloquially) the Island itself, or (legally) the Island of Guernsey together with Herm, Lihou etc.

"Alderney" means Alderney and Burhou. "Sark" means Sark and Brecqhou.

All of these constructions are important from a legal and territorial waters viewpoint.

Nigelroberts (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Climate

For the climate classification, I am not sure wheter Guernsey falls under the oceanic climate category or the cool summer mediterranean climate because I see a drying trend in the summer although areas around it have an oceanic climate. Any suggestions on how to classify this climate?Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)