MrTattieHeid wrote:"British North America"? You mean Canada? As far as I know, that's the only territory that has been known by that name. I believe that term was coined specifically to differentiate the remaining colonies from the thirteen that broke away. I could be wrong. I do know that the confederation of Canada was validated by the British North America Act of 1867.
During the eighteenth century, long before the USA or Canada had been thought of, the British possessions in North America were commonly referred to as "British North America". After the Revolution, the Americans and even the Brits decided, quite sensibly, that the name was inappropriate, and it was no longer applied to US territory.
[I think this is something that rather slips between the cracks on Google, but you can read about British North America in the book by the eminent historian of Colonial America and the Revolution, Bernard Bailyn: "The Peopling of British North America".]
Anyway, the point is that the folks in the US objected to a geographical name that was no longer appropriate - their independent country was no longer "British". And that seems to me to be appropriate for the Irish living in the Republic. Their country occupies most of the island of Ireland, is independent, and certainly not British. Why should they accept that they live in the "British" Isles, any more than the Americans should have accepted after independence that they lived in "British" North America?
There's no problem calling the archipelago "the islands of Britain and Ireland" or something similar - it's more accurate for a start, and less irritating to patriotic citizens of the Republic.
So - what was the original question?