Talk:Territorial evolution of the British Empire

Initial comments

This is a work in progress. Status and dates may not be correct. The list refers to current and former British territories as far as Britain is concerned, so it may not reflect a universal neutral POV. For example, Falkland Islands is listed as a British overseas territory, but it has been claimed by Argentina.

The source of this table mostly originates from the WorldStatesmen site. Whereas dates and status are unclear, other sources were referenced. Input and suggestion are welcomed. --Kvasir 07:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notes

Definition

British Nationality Act 1981:

The United Kingdom's dependent territories on 1 January 1983 were Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands and Dependencies, Gibraltar, Hong Kong (not been a dependent territory since 30 June 1997), Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Christopher and Nevis (not been a dependent territory since 18 September 1983), St. Helena and Dependencies, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin Islands.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were the "Dependencies" of the Falkland Islands, but were not dependent territories during the period 3 October 1985 - 3 December 2001.

Since 26 February 2002, the British dependent territories have been officially known as "British overseas territories" and British Dependent Territories citizens(hip) as "British overseas territories citizens(hip)". --Kvasir 10:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic and Europe

Sections completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 22:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indian Ocean and Atlantic

Sections completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 16:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oceania + Pacific and South America

Section completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 02:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Central America and the Caribbean

Section completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

On-going tasks

Years to be wikified with relevant treaties, acts, and other events. Data to be verified. --Kvasir 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

England and Wales

Isn't "annexation" the word used to describe the Statute of Rhuddlan and Acts of Union 1536-1543? --Kvasir 15:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Assistance

Kvasir - nice work. The only obvious gaps I noticed were Hong Kong and India (when did parts eg Kashmir become part of the Raj?). Good luck! (JD)

Thank you. As you've noticed, Africa, Asia and North America are a bit of a stub at a moment. There are just way too many territories to go through. I have just added Hong Kong for you at the moment. May be you can help with the rest! --Kvasir 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Rupert's Land and Quebec

What's the source for Rupert's Land being part of the Province of Quebec from 1774 to 1783? I've never heard of this and suspect it's an error. Indefatigable 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The list is mostly referenced from www.worldstatesmen.org and then verified with related wiki articles. This one is from http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Canada_Provinces_P-Y.html . The territorial transfer/creation in Northwest Territories is particularly messy... So any help for that area would be appreciated. --Kvasir 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands/German States

This article lists ALL territories associated with the British Empire and England, even for temporary war-time occupation. Personal unions are certainly included here for the case of some Dutch provinces and german states. For the Dutch provinces they were under William III of Orange with England sharing the same monarch. Please be clear that this or the article by no means imply that England ruled over the Dutch. --Kvasir 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What sharing monarch?The Netherlands were a republic at the time.You don't seem to get the concept of a stadholder. We weren't part of the British empire, and so the Netherlands will not be included on this map.

Sander 11:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Empire

This article is about the empire that was British. Because England had begun establishing overseas colonies before the union with Scotland, it is fair, accurate and reasonable to include those possessions in this article. As the second paragraph says, "The rise of the British Empire has its origin in the 15th century during the reign of King Henry VIII of England." So why on earth are medieval English regal possessions in France listed in this article? It is utterly ridiculous and highly misleading to do so. Neither word, "Britain" nor "Empire" makes absolutely any sense whatsoever in this context. If one is going to include them then the article should be renamed to "Territories ruled by England and Britain". Gsd2000 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of talk about the inclusion in the British Empire map of Angevin territories in France, the Netherlands after the Glorious Revolution, and Axis territories administered after WWII. On top of that there is a debate about Ireland. And on top of that, it should be pointed out that HVIII did not reign in the 15thC - although it's reasonable to state that the origins of the empire lie in Cabot's mission statement in the 1490's.--shtove 23:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe "British" or "Empire" are the wrong words to use for this article. I originally created this article to list ALL territories that are in any shape or form under British/English administration and through personal unions related to the Isles. The tables list how the status of each territory evolved through time until the point where they are independent or no longer under British/English administration. This was good and fine until sematics take over. Now people are debating what is defined in "British Empire" and the precise second the whole entity came to being. I drew the line when I did not include a Scottish colony in the Caribbean because it was prior to the union with England. I included territories in Metropolitan France because as disclaimed in the introduction, this article includes territories associated with ENGLAND and BRITAIN. If we are including modern day personal unions and the Commonwealth, why not the union with the Dutch Stadholder?

At the time "British Empire" seemed like the only concise words i could think of to describe the what is controlled from the Isles. How can we best rename this article? --Kvasir 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of territories controlled or ruled by governments or monarchs of the British Isles? Although, the silliness of that title would make me take a step back. What are you trying to achieve here? Who is this article of interest to? I think this is a bit listcruft-y. Evolution of the British Empire is a very valid article, to see how the empire changed territorially over the times. The common thread there is the empire. But once you start going into William of Normandy and the British occupied zone of Berlin then the common thread becomes very weak, and certainly nothing that a serious historical text would be written on. Put another way, Britain's handing back of Hong Kong in 1997 can be causally linked with England's invasion of Ireland in the 16th Century. Britain was there to withdraw from HK because it began an empire 500 years earlier. On the other hand, it would be pretty tough causally linking England's ties with Normandy after 1066 to the withdrawal from Hong Kong, and nigh impossible with military occupation of Berlin in 1945. Gsd2000 12:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

But at the same time Gsd2000, England's invasion of Ireland in the 16th Century was most certainly linked with beginning of English involvement in Ireland with the Papal Bull in the 1100s, Henry II's invasion of Ireland and the Norman involvement in Ireland from the landing of knights to the coming of Norman, French, Welsh, English, etc. settlers (Old English or Cambro-Normans or whatever you call them) claiming land after the Norman invasion. And of course Britain's handing back of Hong Kong was linked to the 16th Century invasion of Ireland which in turn was linked to 10th Century Anglo-Norman involvement in Ireland. And of course Norman involvement in Ireland only really picked up, after the Norman invasion of England, which in turn later links England with the Angevin territories in France.

As for the post-world war II military occupations (in addition to the fact that the occupations and the war intimately involved the Empire as a whole), we can take the example of Japan. Britain (and Australia, India, New Zealand and Canada) were there in Japan in 1945 because there was a war of imperial conquest from 1941-1945 by Japan (I know Japan started earlier, like around 1937, but I'm dealing with Japan v. British Empire here). Japan attempted to acquire Britain's colonies in Asia by force, and Britain, in alliance with many other countries beat Japan back and occupied her afterwards. If there were no British colonies in Asia = No war by Japan against Britain. Germany is different, the causes that resulted in the military occupation of Berlin in 1945 were many, but among them was WWI and one of the causes (not the main cause) of WWI (causes of world war I) was colonial rivalry. Another cause, was that after WWII started, one of the aims of the Axis powers was to knock Britain out of the war and annex some of her colonies (Italy and Japan especially wished to do so).

With the personal unions, although Sander may seem to jealously guard the fact that the Netherlands were never ruled from London (and no one said they were and I don't for one minute believe that they were ever a part of the Empire), he cannot disprove that the Netherlands were not associated with England and Scotland and by extension the English Empire. King William III, when he became King, removed the traditional palace guards and replaced them with Dutch guards (much to the annoyance and dislike of many in England) and during his campaigns, the English and Dutch Fleets acted in concert. In addition he at times appointed Dutch commanders to lead English (and Scottish) battalions during campaigns against France(again much to the annoyance of English commanders) which took place in Europe and in overseas colonies. If William III had not been there, then it is doubtful that England would have become so involved militarily in northwest Europe. With the Hannoverian kings, Britain again became involved in Europe and Hannover became so linked with Britain that at one point they had a (not the only) flag with the Union Jack with a white-horse-on-red-field superimposed (see Flags of the World website). Add to that that various new titles were proposed for George I including Emperor of the British and Irish and Emperor of the British and Hanoverian Dominions (both suggested in 1801).

A serious historical work may not write on this, because such a work would have to span volumes (think Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" or something along those lines). And writing volumes is not only lengthy, but much more expensive than writing a single book on British society from 1588 - present (besides, any one book that was that long would probably not have very many readers). Anon 12:55 pm April 16, 2006

A less wordy title that encompasses the meaning of this could just be "Evolution of the English and British Empires". Anon 1:11 pm April 16, 2006

The interests i had when i created this article was to make a reference list that maybe useful for philatelists or numismatists, for example. The issue of coins and postage stamps were and still are signs of sovereignty and signals to the rest of the world who's in charge of a particular territory. By having such a list one can get a political context that could be related to the coin or stamp, whichever it may be. For example, one may ask why was a certain English/British monarch on the coin from this territory in that year? Or why was this English/british philatelic item originated in a certain occupied territory during and after the war? These are some of the questions I hope this list will answer.

I must say i'd have to agree of many of Anon's points, whoever he or she maybe. (and I do hope this user will start electonically sign his or her input to give it more credibility.) In any case i think, occupation should be included here because that's in many case that's how some of the colonies in the Caribbean/Asia started out from. Some started as mere settlements, while some started from occupation in the fallout of a conflict. How is that different from Berlin or Vienna? If WWII was to happen a century or two earlier in the height of the race for colonies, what's to stop Britain turning it into, say, another HK? What's different was that there was an international body stopping Powers from carving territories unilaterally. --Kvasir 07:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on Anon's failure to sign in, having been involved in various debates with him/her. Contributors wishing to be involved to the extent that (s)he is should absolutely be signed in. We can't post on their talk page and we can't see their record of contributions. I realise this is all irrelevant to the debate at hand, but seeing as (s)he doesn't have a talk page... Gsd2000 11:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the key difference here is that Berlin was the capital of one metropole occupied by four other metropoles as a result of unconditional surrender. Wars between Britain and France in the Carribean were wars between empires (sometimes when the metropoles were at peace), and colonies were seen as bargaining chips for the eventual peace treaty. WW2 happening a century or two earlier? Well, look no further than the Seven Years' War - a global conflict when France and England were at war and their empires up for grabs, but there was never any suggestion of them colonizing their opponent's metropole. Gsd2000 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point on the Seven Year's War and the idea of metropoles vs. periphery. But wasn't there some kind of agreement that colonial conflicts would not affect the status of peace in Europe (but not vice versa) during that time? Can't remember the name of it for the life of me, but I do seem to remember hearing it in history class, way back in high school. Had the agreement not existed though, then there could have been attempts at colonizing opposing metropoles. Outside of Europe though, metropoles were treated rough-shod by the British, French and Spanish, especially in the Americas (think Aztecs and Incas) and Africa (eastern Africa and the Boer States). Okay, about signing...doesn't put "Anon etc" mean signing? And if Gsd2000 will remember, there was some talk about "having the courage to sign...". Since that appeared to be an attempt to goad, so I ignored it. I assume electronically signing will give a permanent talk page (though I see no need for a talk page, since all the discussions are here anyway). Anon 11:58 am April 18, 2006.

Actually that sentence was a semi-joke, cos I put afterwards in brackets "I do!". I fully encourage you to sign in. When you post a comment you can just write four tildes and it automatically expands out to be your user name and time. Gsd2000 17:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But there is colonisation in Europe proper. See Gibraltar and the Channel Islands. The Channel islands are the perfect example to follow, as to how the remanants of the Duchy of Normandy is now a British crown dependencies. One has to look from the very beginning of the early English/French conflict to see how the status of those territories evolved, no just from the moment the British Empire" came to being. Look at Minorca, the British created a colony there. The Treaty of Paris had France giving Malta to Britain. I know those are little islands off the mainland but they were all inhabited by Europeans during those transfers of sovereignty. --Kvasir 23:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Graph

The graph lists the British Empire as loosing Canada in 1940-1949. I can't guess why that'd be, eh? 1867, 1931 or 1982 are all plausible years for Canadian Independance - 1940-1949 is not. Others may be similarly wrong (for example, Australia is also listed as 1940-1949, which is a choice I can't figure out) WilyD 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the graph is based on either. I'm also skeptical of the unit, as the empire was measured in lineal units. Your best bet is ask the author. --Kvasir 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The infomation for 2007 dose not show some current territory such as Gibraltar and aktoria and dicelia and the cayman islands, although I may be wrongThaBigCheese99 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Home rule?

What a splendid piece of work. However, a better term is needed to describe the current status of Scotland and Wales. Guinnog 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. After a short research I've seen "country"; "home country"; "home nation" etc. Not sure what the official, politically correct term is. --Kvasir 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana and British North America

Besides the overall sense of fanboy Anglomania, one major problem with the map on this page is the position of Louisiana, which has been shifted west several hundred kilometers, thus artificially increasing the size of British territory represented on the American mainland. Compare Image:LouisianaPurchase.png and Image:Map of territorial growth 1775.jpg; the course of the southern Mississippi actually follows a longitude parallel to the western shore of Lake Huron. I've hand-drawn a much more accurate representation of the Louisiana boundary at Image:Spanish Empire.png, and this could be used to solve the above problem. I will do so myself if no one objects. Albrecht 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? The more accurate the map is the better. One thing readers have to realise is that this article is really about the list and not the graphics. The graphic map is nice to help visualise the extent of the territories, but when viewed in such a small scale in the main page it shouldn't really be the focus. Besides, any concern regarding the map itself should be addressed to the author of the map. It would've been even more helpful if you can add a Lousiana / BNA entry in the table. --Kvasir 05:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Electorate/Kingdom of Hanover and the Netherlands

The German state of Hanover was not part of the British Empire, so I have removed it from the list. It was never under the authority of the Westminster parliament, either in theory or in practice, and retained its own government and other institutions. It merely shared its head of state with Great Britain. Silverhelm 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Ditto the Netherlands. Silverhelm 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Name of article

This article's name doesn't accurately represent its contents; I'm also a firm believer that Wikipedia articles that are lists should be clearly identified as such in their title. Unless anyone can come up with a better name, I propose renaming it to List of territories of the British Empire. Silverhelm 12:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

I think the short list in the section "Treaties and Acts" is the start of something useful that should perhaps form an article of its own; perhaps "Timeline of the British Empire"? Silverhelm 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

I think the title "Evolution of territories connected to the English and British crown" is more in-line with my original purpose of this article. I really intended to include medieval territories and other pre-HVIII stuff since "British Empire" itself was really arbitrary and contentious as we have discovered people are particular with these kind of stuff. When i first started the article i really intended the word British to mean geographically as in British Isles, not the difference between Britain and England in the political sense. What do you think? --Kvasir 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, it is about time the "Treaties and Acts" section to be split off into its own article under a similar intent as this article once we have decided upon a suitable title. --Kvasir 05:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tangier_Garrison

Not listed. Should it be in? Jooler 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I've mainly been trying to tidy up the more recent stuff (19th-century onwards), which I'm more familiar with; but I'm sure there are lots of factories and so on from earlier periods that are missing. Silverhelm 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

"To do"

The following list has been edited together from two separate blocks of commented-out material now removed from the article. The details need to be checked before being used to add missing entries to the main article.

---List begins---

• Andaman & Nicobar Islands (A: 1789-1947, N: 1868-1947)
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands (1789-1796,1858-1947)
• Afghanistan (1839-1842, 1879-1880)
• Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (The Sudan) (1898-1956)
• Ashmore and Cartier Islands(1878-1934)
• Basutholand (Lesotho) (1843-1966)
• Bechuanaland (Botswana) (1885-1966)
• Bermuda (1609-)
• Bhutan (1910-1947)
• Bombay (1662-1947)
• Bonin Islands (1827-1875)
• British Cameroons (1914-1954)
• British Colombia (1858-1871)
• British Kaffraria (1835-1878)
• British Lower Burma (1824-1948)
• British North Borneo (Sabah) (1762-1775,1877-1963)
• British Persian (Arabian) Gulf Residency (1763-1971)
• British Somaliland (1884-1960)
• British Togoland (1914-1956)
• British West Africa (1821-1850,1866-1888)
• British Western Pacific Territories (1877-1976)
• Brunei (1888-1983)
• Burma (1885-1948)
• Canada East (1759-1867)
• Cape Breton Island (1629,1745-1749,1758-1867)
• Cape colony (1795-1803,1806-1910)
• Carolina (1585-1586,1629-1776)
• Ceuta (1810-1814)
• Ceylon (1796-1948)
• Connecticut (1639-1776)
• Coorg (1834-1947)
• Danish India (Tranquebar) (1808-1815)
• Delaware (1664-1776)
• Dutch East Indies (1811-1816, 1945-1946)
• Dutch India (1780-1784,1795-1818)
• Elba (1801-1802)
• Eritrea (1941-1952)
• Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953-1963)
• Fernando Poo (Port Clarence) (1827-1855)
• Fiji (1871-1970)
• Florida (1763-1783)
• French India (1760-1765,1778-1783,1793-1816)
• French Somaliland (Djibouti)(1942-1946)
• Gambia (1661-1695,1713-1779,1816-1970)
• Gascongy/Guyenne (1152-1449)
• Gold Coast (1621-1960)
• Gorée (1758-1763, 1809-1817)
• Grenada (1609,1762-1779,1783-1974)
• Hawaii (1843)
• Hong Kong (1841-1997)
• Howland Island (1889-1935)
• India (1774-1947)
• Iraq (1916-1935)
• Isle of Man (1290-1313,1317-1328,1333-)
• Italian Somaliland (1941-1950)
• Jamaica (1765-1962)
• Jarvis (1889-1935)
• Kamaran Island (1915-1967)
• Kuria Muria Islands (1854-1967)
• Kuwait (1899-1961)
• Labuan (1846-1963)
• Lagos (1861-1960)
• Lebanon (1941-1946)
• Lower Canada (1759-1867)
• Macao (1808)
• Madagascar (1942-1946)
• Madeira (1801-1802,1807-1814)
• Madras (1640-1947)
• Maine (1622-1775)
• Malacca (1795-1802, 1807-1818,1824-1957)
• Malaya (1874-1957)
• Maryland (1632-1776)
• Massachusetts (1620-1775)
• Minorca (1708-1756, 1763-1782,1798-1802)
• Mombassa (1823-1826)
• Mosquito Coast (1658-1894)
• Moluccas (1796-1802,1810-1817)
• Muscat and Oman (1861-1971)
• Natal (1829-1839,1843-1910)
• Nepal (1816-1923)
• New Caledonia (1698-1700)
• New England (1686-1689)
• New France (1759-1764)
• New Hampshire (1623-1776)
• New Jersey (1665-1776)
• New York (1664-1775)
• North Borneo (now Sabah, part of Malaysia)
• North Carolina (1629-1776)
• North-West Frontier Province (1901-1947)
• Northern Nigeria (1885-1914)
• Northern Rhodesia (1900-1964)
• Northern Territory (1824-1829,1838-1849,1864-1900)
• Nyasaland (Malawi) (1889-1964)
• Oil Rivers Protectorate (1827-1914)
• Oman
• Orange Free State (1845-1854,1900-1910)
• Palestine (1918-1948)
• Papua (1883-1901)
• Penang (Prince of Wales Island) (1786-1957)
• Pennsylvania (1681-1776)
• Philippines (1762-1764)
• Pitcairn (1790-)
• Punjab (1849-1947)
• Qatar (1868-1971)
• Quebec (1629-1632,1759-1867)
• Rhode Island (1636-1776)
• Rhodesia (1888-1900)
• Saint Domingue (Haiti) (1793-1798)
• Saint Helena (1651-)
• Saint Martin (1781,1801-1802,1810-1816)
• Sarawak (1888-1963)
• Senegal (1693,1758-1779, 1809-1817)
• Sierra Leone (1787-1961)
• Sikkim (1817-1947)
• Sind (1843-1947)
• Singapore (1819-1959)
• Somalia (1941-1950)
• South Arabia (1839-1967)
• South Caribbean Islands (1762-1779,1783-1802)
• South Carolina (1665-1776)
• Southern Nigeria (1849-1914)
• Suez Canal Zone (1922/36-1956)
• Syria (1914-1919, 1941-1946)

• British India (now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh)

• Shanghai British Concession, later International Settlement
• Wei-Hai-Wei (now city of Weihai in Shandong, China)

• Dutch East Indies- mainly just Java (occupied and administered by South East Asia Command (SEAC) to accept Japanese surrender and restore law and order until the Dutch arrived)
• French Indochina- south of the 16th parallel, but mainly Saigon (occupied and administered by SEAC to accept Japanese surrender and restore law and order until the French arrived)

• Iran (occupied and administered by Indian Command)
• Iraq (under same administration as Iran)

• Japan (Shikoku and part of Honshu occupied as British Commonwealth Occupation Zone)

• Lebanon (occupied and administered)
• Syria (same administration as Lebanon)

• South West Africa (now Namibia)
• Comoros (as part of Madagascar, see below)
• Eritrea (as a UN Trust Territory)
• Ethiopia (and the Ogaden for a slightly longer period, as part of Italian East Africa, Ehtiopia was soon handed back to the Ethiopian government-in-exile).
• French Somaliland (now Djibouti) (occupied and local administration continued)
• Italian Somaliland (occupied and administered until 1950, then returned to Italy as a UN Trust Territory).
• Madagascar (occupied and administered)
• Mayotte (as part of the Comoros, see above)
• Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (now most of Libya) (as a UN Trust Territory)
• Reunion (occupied, local administration continues)

Some early territorial claims for England that were abandoned and not settled. Goustien (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Meta Incognita, Baffin Island, around Frobisher Bay, claimed by Martin Frobisher in 1577. Frobisher's 1578 voyage was originally planned to establish a settlement here.
• "West England," a part of Greenland claimed by Frobisher in June 1578
• Elizabeth Island in the Straits of Magellan, claimed by Sir Francis Drake on August 24, 1578
• Elizabeth Island near Cape Horn, claimed by Drake in September 1578
• New Albion on the west coast of North America, claimed by Drake in June 1579

---List ends---

Silverhelm 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Hold on? Why are British Somaliland and New York on the list? Are you saying that the details for those territories need to be checked out before they are re-added to the list? Shame that, since I was going to start adding to the North American colonies, but now I'm not so sure.72.27.83.104 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ruthless logic wasn't applied! {grin}

I left some items in above because at quick glance they contradicted the main list. I didn't look at the details too closely, I just bunged them up there pretty much as an aide memoire (and to get them away from being hidden as comments in the main article). If you're happy about the details you intended to add, absolutely go ahead and add them. I suspect that the above details have been collated from the worldstatesmen.org website, but if so they should in no way be treated as authoritative. Silverhelm 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Nice reformatting, but why remove some material?

Silverhelm, you are doing a splendid job at reformatting the tables on the page making them more user friendly and organized. I have to ask however, why remove some of the material? For instance you removed the territories held by England only in the Middle Ages, but why? The page is supposed to list the "territories that have been under the political control of the United Kingdom and/or its predecessor states" which includes England, Scotland (and also Ireland). Therefore if anything I thought instead of removing the Middle Age English territories you would have added the various areas controlled by Scotland (prior to the Act of Union) since those areas are not listed (e.g. Nova Scotia, various settlements in eastern North America and the Darien colony - all colonization attempts that were separate from English colonialism). If this list isn't going to include such territories that were controlled by the predecessor states but not necessarily by the United Kingdom afterwards, then it should probably only list those territories controlled by the United Kingdom (i.e. post 1707 Act of Union) and any territories lost by England prior to such time, including the Tangier garrison and Calais and the Channel Islands (which are some of those Middle Age territories as well and just happened to be retained after the Hundred Years War) should be left out. Perhaps you could do something for the map as well, since the fellow who made the current revision of the map deleted a whole lot of territories that were even non-controversial like Suriname ("Willoughbyland" region), Tangier, Heligoland, Ionian Islands, and the areas of Libya controlled by the UK for the Trust Territory period (but oddly enough he/she retained the British Cameroons and Tanganyika which were also trust territories).72.27.83.104 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the accolade; it's quite laborious work! There's still so much to be done, especially all the little errors and inconsistencies...

Regarding the territories that I've removed from the list, the simple answer is that they are rarely (if ever) included in anyone's use of the phrase "British Empire". Those territories were not of the same nature; they were (mainly) French fiefs for which fealty was owed (although not always given) to the French king by their lord (who also happened to be the English king). They fall within the category of regional politics, really; the jostling for position between two neighbouring powers, in much the same way as happened with (say) the counts of Flanders and the French kings, or between different German states. They were territories to be ruled, not settled; the landlords changed, but the tenants remained the same. I'd argue that they were also not "under the political control of [England]"; that description belongs to the imperialism of a later age (ie, the early modern era onwards). By way of contrast, it's perhaps instructive to consider English interference in Ireland; initially it was of a somewhat similar nature, but would develop into a clear example of colonialism that had more to do with what would happen in the "New World" (and later, elsewhere), rather than a matter of who controlled what castle (as was more the case in France).

I would suggest that the introductory section ought to be rewritten to give a start date of 1500. It might be somewhat arbitrary, but it is a useful convention used by historians that does mark (in a very crude way) the end of the "old" Europe and the beginnings of a new Europe; one that started to include territorial expansion well beyond areas of their historical interest. In a few cases there are territories that are remnants of that earlier time, and so I retained them. But it's those colonies and so forth on other continents that gave rise to the phrase "British Empire", in the same way as one might speak of the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, or Danish empires. If that overseas expansion had never occurred, then "the British Islands" would never be referred to as an empire; it's the territories that I have retained, not the omitted ones, that gave rise to the phrase. Incidentally, it wasn't until the 16th century that the English Crown formally adopted the description "Imperial" for itself.

The intermittent Scottish attempts at overseas expansion should certainly also be included in the list, as they are of exactly the same nature as the English territories, the later British territories, or indeed the French, Spanish, (etc.) territories. The reason why I have not added them is simply because (a) I know little about them, and (b) even those parts of the list that I've overhauled are still very much works in progress, with numerous missing entries (see if you can find New York, for example!). Not only do they deserve inclusion on their own merits, but of course the Darien settlements in particular are noteworthy as being a contributory cause of the union with England.

Finally, the map clearly does need a bit of spit and polish, although at quick glance it seems reasonably sound (say, 95% accurate, which is much better than the article proper). I haven't paid a great deal of attention to it, although having a quick look just now made me realise that it seems to show pre-WWI borders for Africa, but 1920s borders for Europe and North America! I can't easily see what you mean about some of the territories you mention (other than the obvious issue of Libya), because it appears to be very difficult to see what islands are coloured. I think providing numbered identification for all the territories would be an idea, too... For now, though, the lists are going to be quite enough work!

Silverhelm 21:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Okay, well further up in the talk page I believe the original author (Kvasir) admitted that the North America section was a basically a stub section, so it would of course need a lot of work. Should the colonies from Massachussetts to Georgia be listed under "Thirteen Colonies" in the same manner as Matabeland, Mashonaland, etc. (which reminds me that the Africa section has left out northern Rhodesia/Zambia and its predecessor colonies entirely) or should they all be listed separately and alphabetically?

For the Scottish colonies there is a nice wikipedia article which could be used: Scottish colonization of the Americas. The lists will need expanding but I've also begun to add the various symbols found in the original legend to the comments sections for the independent, current-day states.

Do you envision the Acts and Treaties section being comprehensive (i.e. including Associated States acts, all the independence acts, etc.)?72.27.83.104 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rhodesian territories still need tidying up from the original formatting; that's the only reason for Matabeleland and the rest not being in their proper place yet (which would certainly be my ultimate intention). I would certainly have the Thirteen Colonies listed separately as well. The sections that I've tackled to date should in no way be considered to be the final product! So much to do...

I'm not sure about the list of treaties and so forth. So far I've confined myself to the more significant events, but haven't been terribly scientific about it yet. There's probably a decent argument to be made to include the independence acts and so on, in which case that section should definitely be hived off as its own article (it's already going to be a bit too big to be a mere appendix to the main list). I can certainly add a considerable number of Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council for a whole host of territories (perhaps including full citations as well?). What do you think?

Silverhelm 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I would like to see a separate article as well on acts and treaties that affects the British/English territorial extent. --Kvasir 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit more, it does seem like a nice thing to have. I think the approach to take is that the list is split out on its own (as previously suggested), and that it can be a comprehensive listing, with the more significant events (say) put in bold. Nigerian independence is more important than (say) the division of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands into two separate colonies.

I already have my own notes detailing (amongst other things) some of the documents that would be relevant, including some for fairly obscure events such as the transfer of Dominica to the Windward Islands.

All we really need is an article name. "Timeline of the evolution of the British Empire" would seem to cover it, in my view. That would perhaps imply some events without direct implications for territorial gain or loss, but then it's useful to have a wider context anyway.

Silverhelm 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Silverhelm: This article was intended to list all territories controlled by England/Britain from the day of the Kingdom of England was formed (if you have read the intro that was there before). What it needed was a more accurate title to describe this list as we have had discussed previously in this Talk Page instead of changing and deleting the content. The purpose of this list was also to track the naming and territorial change of each and every one of these territories. Although what I see here somewhat detracts from my original intent at the start of this article, I have currently not much time to be involve with wikipedia. I am glad that there are people interested in this topic however. --Kvasir 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Silverhelm, good to know you intend to reorganize the Rhodesias (and the rest of the list as well). Well since each of the thirteen colonies will be listed separately then that means any contributor can at least begin the entries and have them expanded and detailed later. As I pointed out earlier, the original intention of the article seemed to include at least the mention of the Middle Age territories and though Kvasir doesn't say it, the article would probably be ultimately better off listing "all territories controlled by England/Britain from the start of the Kingdom of England" and listing "all territories controlled by Scotland/Britain from the start of the Kingdom of Scotland" (since these two countries formed the basis of Britain - Ireland also formed part of the United Kingdom later, but I can't recall any Kingdom of Ireland that had control of territories outside of the Kingdom). Perhaps the title should have been changed to Evolution of the British Empire and its predecessors? Also maybe the Middle Ages could be put in a separate section, so everything from the beginning of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland until about 1500 being placed in a "Pre-colonial" section or an Angevin section (if the term "Angevin Empire" is used then the word empire should be in quotations to note that it wasn't called an empire at the time, although using "Angevin" for the section would be biased against Scotland). "Pre-colonial" or "Middle Age Europe" seem less biased. As for the Acts and Treaties section, perhaps a stub section could be left in this article (with only the really most significant Acts and Treaties being retained) and a "see main article" link to a new article that had all the Acts and Treaties with the significant ones in bold. You could also use italics.72.27.83.104 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Silverhelm was exactly right: Zero precedent can be found for listing Medieval territories as part of the "British Empire." Despite the oft-repeated pretensions to the contrary, this page is not about "Britain and its predecessor states"—this is merely anachronistic nonsense introduced by an editor who really ought to have known better. Unless you find scholarly sources that discuss Medieval English dependencies in the context of an overarching use of "British Empire," any mention of "pre-colonial" or "Angevin" territories will be removed as OR. Albrecht 05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this again seems to demonstrate that there is a lack of understanding of the term British empire. I agree that zero precedent can be found for listing medieval territories as part of said empire, because they were not part of the British empire. Everyone agrees on that, so its a wasted argument. However, many scholarly sources that discuss the British empire, never just start at 1707 or even 1603, but usually from the start of English colonialism in the Americas. Such works are technically about English and British colonialism, but hardly ever try to make a distinction (probably because its all part of the same history). Contrary to your statement however, this page was precisely about Britain and its predecessor states (England and Scotland), just ask the original author of the page, Kvasir. You will not find scholarly sources that discuss mideval territories "in the context of an overarching use of the 'British Empire,'..." because the parameters that you set virtually guarantee the exclusion of sources that detail all of English and Scottish history from the beginnings of unified states (800s and 900s) to the present day, including the British Empire which is but one part of the whole histories. A limited scope yields limited results. The criteria used for this page and for the British empire all seem rather biased and hypocritical when one looks at the German colonial empire page (which strictly speaking should only detail the colonial attempts by the German Empire in Old World and the Pacific from 1884-1914) and the Dutch Empire (which even has Luxembourg being shown on the map as part of the empire). Even the Spanish empire page seems to be run by a different set of rules; it has Portuguese possessions being shown on the map. The Empire of Japan page also seems to have an entirely different viewpoint with areas that were occupied by the Japanese being considered complete parts of the Empire as opposed to just occupied territory. Well, anyway, to each their own, the outline of this page isn't as important as including territories such as New York, and all the various Rhodesias (North East, North West and later Northern, etc.).72.27.83.104 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Greenland?

I see in the map labelled 'The British Empire in 1897’ there is a part of Greenland shown as part of the Empire. The map contains the note ‘This map shows parts of Greenland as part of the British Empire. This region was never occupied by the British and the claim was contested by Denmark, which continued to claim sovereignty over all of Greenland.’ Aside from this note, however, I can find no reference to any part of Greenland being claimed by the British in articles on the Empire or on Greenland. Looking at the map the area appears to be labelled ‘Prudhoe Land’; again I can find no reference to such a territory. If anyone does have any information about this I would find it very helpful if they could put some details on this page. --Phunting 1000, 29 Dec 2006

"West England," a part of Greenland, was claimed by Martin Frobisher on behalf of Queen Elizabeth in June 1578. This, like Meta Incognita on Baffin Island, was not settled at the time, and anyway, it was much farther south, near Cape Farewell, Greenland. The area on the 1897 map might be a claim from Elisha Kane's 1854 expedition. He named "Peabody Bay," which appears on the map, which is now called Kane Basin. --Goustien (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding British Columbia

User:157.244.201.135 added the following to the article at 20:43 UTC 12 January 2007: "Note to Wikipedia: the following table should be amended by adding British Columbia as a colony from 1858 to 1871 when it became a province of Canada." I moved it here to the talk page. He/she is right: B.C. is missing, as is New Caledonia. Indefatigable 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Map series

The anachronous map is good but doesnt show the expansion and decline over time. How about a new page with a series of maps showing the British Empire at different periods, similar to Territorial evolution of the United States? There is already the 1921 map, this could be used as the basis for making other years. --Astrokey44 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This presents some difficulties. First we would need so many maps to depict the constant (change possibly every couple years) reflecting the territorial gain and loss, not to mention the changing TYPES of the territory. Second, if we were to use snap shot, such as every 10 years or whatever, it would not reflect an actual evolution that was happening. One of the reasons i created this article was that at that time, the British Empire article had one or two maps and then a list of territories accompanying each of the maps. Then I thought, why just 1921? Then i decided to make this article summarising and tracing how each territory evolved. If one feel ambitious, one could create an animated gif emcompassing each year since the beginning until today. Territorial change could be achieved through colour change on the map i suppose. --Kvasir 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Derived from colonisation map

I found an animated map showing colonisation of different empires, and modified it to include only Britain. There are problems (when to remove the dominions for one thing), but this is a start. --Astrokey44 09:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job on finding the map. Though I could say less about the article, it's been adulterated from the original purpose when all it needed was an accurate title. --Kvasir 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Leading paragraphs

Ok, this article was really intended to be a list, a quick summary of what and what kind of territories that are and were connected to Britian/England. There's really no need for paragraphs to explain what each of the term means. Especially the first 5 paragraphs, there is really no need to discuss Ireland and Hanover specifically either. We already have the main articles for that especially on British Empire. I suggest we return to the original list of different types of Commonwealth/British territories before we move on to the main territory evolution list.

On the other hand. The originally introductory paragraph has been so chopped up and dissected that the originally intent of the article was lost. The purpose of the list must be outlined there. Just want others to comment before I delete those. --Kvasir 04:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dowry of Catherine of Braganza

This article should make mention of the above and the acquisition of Bombay and the Tangier Garrison etc. Jooler 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tangier Garrison still missing - I'm sure I put this in a previous incarnation of this article. Jooler (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Griqualand West?

Griqualand West was a British colony from declaration in 1873 - absorbtion into Cape Colony 1880. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Implicit prejudice in use of colour?

In the list, could the use of green to show independance and red to show British Overseas Territories be a little biased, considering the implications of those colours? I know that imperialism is generally considered to be "bad" (to say the least) but it just seems against the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia to have such a blatantly opinionated feature being used. It just seems unlikely that the red/green dichotomy would be used if it wasn't so obviously for that reason. 82.3.50.60 (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That is quite possibly the most bizarre statement I have ever read on Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

South America

46 days at BsAs due British invasions of the Río de la Plata --Jor70 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

British Antarctica display problem

The entries after the flag are formatted incorrectly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.102 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Suriname, South America for New York City area.

Suriname, South America was traded back to the Dutch in exchange for Britain taking over New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.209.235.20 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Colony, Condominum, Protectorate and Mandate: What's the difference why it matters?

Freedom1968 (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Freedom1968 (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder as a new contributor if I may raise the above question in the context of further improving this interesting article? The point being that we should recognise that in their context differences in the legal status of certain territories was recognised, and therefore I think we should as well. To call a certain territory a "colony" whilst simpler when in fact it is a "protectorate" (or even "colonial protectorate") is strictly speaking inaccurate. Any views? Freedom1968 (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Freedom1968 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The listing clearly identifies each territory as being a "colony", "protectorate", "associated state", and so on. Have you identified a specific case where the labelling is incorrect? Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

At least one. Bechuanaland is listed as being "Colony" froom 1964-1965. In fact its status never changed from being a "Protectorate" the only thing that happened in 1964 was the disbanding of the High Commission arrangements for administering the remaining territories of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanland.

You are of course quite correct. I have removed the reference to Bechunaland ever having been a "colony", and have changed the description for the period 1965-1966 to "self-governing protectorate"; the latter is not ideal but I think will have to do.

I suspect the description for this territory, as with some of the other howlers that have dogged this listing, are from the worldstatemen.org website, which seems to have indiscriminately hoovered-up information from a variety of sources without either verifying them or providing a citation for others to either check or assess.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

I attempted earlier to distinguish between the difference types of "Protectorates". In effect those in Africa and some elsewhere were "Colonial Protectorates" as opposed to "International Protectorates". The distinction is a subtle one but recognised at the time as existing according to legal opinion. Freedom1968 (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, you've lost me here. I would understand the term "international protectorate" to mean a territory administered by or on behalf of "the international community", e.g. the Free City of Danzig; the only comparable territories under British administration were the League of Nations mandated territories and the United Nations Trust Territories, which should be and have been described as such. Or are you referring to the technical distinction sometimes made between a "protectorate" and a "protected state", i.e. contrasting on the one hand a territory with a system of government entirely created and imposed by the imperial power (and run as a de-facto Crown colony), with on the other hand a pre-existing indigenous polity that has surrendered its external relations (and in practice something of its internal sovereignty) to the imperial power? Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

I think this may be more of a practical distinction than a legal one, on just the lines suggested by Andrew Gwilliam. In British Colonial Constitutions, 1947 (Clarendon Press, 1952), Martin Wight says (see pp. 8–13) "We have here the distinction between the two kinds of territory under British protection: colonial protectorates and protected states". He defines the first as "a colony in all but name" and goes on to say "Protected states are originally differentiated from colonial protectorates as having longer traditions and more stable forms of government. Sociologically speaking, the line of division is that between primitive societies - all with one exception in Africa - and states of the Islamic Civilization encircling the Indian Ocean... An exclusively juridical analysis would be very unrealistic." The obvious exception to the "primitive societies" rule in Africa is Zanzibar, which was of course one of the "states of the Islamic Civilization encircling the Indian Ocean". Moonraker (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in two minds as to whether our listing here should distinguish between the terms "protectorate" and "protected state":

1. On the one hand, it is possible to clearly distinguish (in some cases!) between (a) a protectorate proper, such as the Gambia Protectorate, with a Crown colony form of government and no territory-wide indigenous political institutions, and (b) a protected state, such as Tonga, with territory-wide native institutions (including a ruler) that existed prior to, and continued under, formal British involvement. In such cases, the distinction is a useful one: the Gambia Protectorate was in effect (albeit not in law) a Crown colony of a most politically inferior type (being subordinated to the institutions of the Gambia Colony), while Tonga retained its own monarchy, laws, and so forth. Also, the term "protected state" is used in at least two British statutes, so has formal legal recognition of the highest possible authority. And finally, while the distinction relates to the world of political science rather than that of law, so do descriptions such as "self-governing", which are used readily enough in the listing as it stands at present.
2. But on the other hand, the term "protected state" seems to have been a fairly late development, was used patchily, and lacks formal definition. As such, how can we determine the "correct" label to be used for any given territory (even assuming that what was good for a particular point in time applied equally for all others)? Jenks' British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas (publ. 1902) recognised "two types of British protectorates", equating to the terms "protected state" and (in its narrower sense) "protectorate", although he does not use the former term. However, he adds a caveat [p. 172]: "But these two types run into each other, so that it may be difficult in some cases to determine whether a protectorate belongs to one or the other." We have the same problem if trying to apply the distinction to the territories in the listing here. For example, the Tonga Act 1970 refers to Tonga as a "protected state", but the analogous Zanzibar Act 1963 refers to Zanzibar as a "protectorate". If British legislation is apparently arbitrary in which term is used, what hope have we got? So it's possible to confidently identify a territory as (say) a "colony" or a "protectorate", since the difference was of fundamental legal (and thus constitutional) importance, but a distinction between "protected state" and "protectorate" would seem to get us into the area of original interpretation (not to mention anachronism).

Getting back to the OP's desire for an accurate reflection of the "legal status" for each territory, though, I can't see that for the purposes of either international or British law there is a juridical distinction to be made between a "protectorate" (in the narrower sense) and a "protected state". All that's relevant is that the United Kingdom had exclusive responsibility for the territory's external relations; the rest is simply a matter of domestic politics.

Incidentally, it's only in consequence of this discussion that it's struck me that there appears to be no statutory definition of "protectorate" (let alone of "protected state")!

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

Interesting and very valid points to make from both of you. What continues to perplex me is that although protectorates of the colonial type where run as colonies there are interesting differences which would make no sense in the context of their times if those differences had no meaning in terminology or law. Take for instance Sierra Leone, Gambia, Gold Coast, Nigeria and Kenya. Each of these adminstrative areas were termed "The Colony & Protectorate of.." So you could have a situation where depending on where you were born you were either a British Subject or a British Protected Person. Such a distinction would be meaningless unless it had foundation in law. My second piece of evidence relates to the application of the writ of Habeas Corpus. This did not apply in protectorates (at least in African possessions} until very late in the colonial period - early 1960s I think - by which time most British administered territories had achieved independance. It raises the interesting question about whether "Protectorates" of the colonial type may have eventually disappeared because remaing legal differences were being eroded away.

Freedom1968 (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Protectorates eventually disappeared for the simple reason that one by one they became independent (the last such being the Solomon Islands). However, the practical differences between the two types of territory (colony and protectorate) seem to have eroded rapidly after 1945. As a matter of law, the British Settlements Act 1945 removed the necessity for issuing separate legal instruments for each half of the dual territories you mentioned. As a matter of policy, responsibility for all the protectorates had passed from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office by about 1905 or so; more importantly, the formal distinction between a coastal colony and its protectorate hinterland faded away as issues and identities began to be seen in terms of the territory as a whole, both by the colonial power and by the indigenous populations. While making for an interesting discussion, though, I can't see that any of this really affects what is in (or should be in) the listing. Much of this stuff is rather nebulous, and is inherently ill-suited to a summary format.

As an aside, I'm not familiar with the issue concerning habeas corpus that you mention. Can you provide me with any details?

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Well my "What if?" scenario vis-a-vis colonial protectorates was meant to point out that had they endured a little longer we might well have seen the disappearance of the term protectorate - at least in UK government circles. On the other hand in term on the list you make the arguement that differences where eroding after 1945, but in fact before that those colony/protectorate combinations were administered as a matter of course together whatever their legal status. This is why I think where they exist on the table they should be listed as "Colony @ Proectorate..." rather than seperately. What happened at independence was the legal merger. Incidentally I don't think every protectorate was moved from the FO to the CO in 1905, one or two continued to be under FO supervision for a while longer. This included Egypt in de facto protectorate status from 1882-1914, actual protectorate 1914-1922, and de facto again 1922-1936. The nominal "independence" in 1922 did not become real until 1936. Freedom1968 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

On the question of protectorates and protected states, S. 30 (1) of the British Nationality Act 1948 says "His Majesty may, in relation to the states and territories under His protection through His government in the United Kingdom, by Order in Council declare which of those states and territories are protectorates and which of them are protected states for the purposes of this Act." I suppose an Order was later made, although I have not tried to track it down. Moonraker (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you go the National Archives in Kew, London you will be able to get copies of those Orders in Council which will show which territories where regarded at any one time as "Protectorates" or "Protected States". On this subject the differences between "Protectorates" and "Colonies" is clear but between "Protectorates" and "Protected States" much less so. The devil is in the detail of the agreement with each "Protected State" Generally the agreement would specify that domestic affairs were not a matter of concern for the UK, but external relations and defence generally were. But I stress you have to look at each individual agreement because they all differed in aspects to a slight degree. Freedom1968 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately your faith in finding neatly phrased legal instruments at the root of British protectorates is for the most part ill-founded. British jurisdiction was often of vague or imprecise origin, in many cases being as much a matter of custom as anything else; this is notoriously the case in relation to the Indian states. You simply will not find a written agreement establishing that a "protectorate" (except perhaps in a handful of cases) or a "protected state" will be constituted from such-and-such date. Written agreements were not drafted on the assumption that they would be tested in English courts by English lawyers; they were an exercise in political power and in dealing with practicalities, and legal niceties were very much a secondary consideration. As such, if you read almost any of the relevant Orders in Council (where such exist) in relation to a protectorate (howsoever defined), British "jurisdiction" will not be expressed to be founded on a specific agreement, but rather in vague terms that simply accept the existence of that jurisdiction as established fact.

By way of example of the difficulty in relying on the written agreemnts, the Provisional Agreement with Zanzibar (dated 14 June 1890) states: "His Highness [...], the Sultan [...], accepts freely and unreservedly for himself, his subjects, and his dominions, the Protectorate of Great Britain, [...]" [The Map of Africa by Treaty, 2nd edition, Vol. II, p. 763]. So does that mean that Zanzibar was a "protectorate" and not a "protected state"? Yet as pointed out by Moonraker, Wight [pp. 9–10] mentions Zanzibar as a protected state. Conversely, Swaziland is described by Wight as a protectorate [p. 77] but (as mentioned above) by its Independence Act as a protected state. So we have a protected state that was a "protectorate", and a protectorate that was a "protected state"!

Much as I would like the listing to distinguish each relevant territory as being either a "protectorate" or a "protected state", it's clear to me now that we can't do it without determining that classification off our own bat. And that, of course, amounts to the dreaded Original Research!

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Status of British bases on Cyprus

I see that the British bases on Cyprus have been labelled "Colony, Dependent Territory and Overseas Territory" in the table. In fact this terminology is not correct. They are in fact sovereign military bases and are not treated in the same manner as other British territories because their primary purpose is not settlement, and incidentally something that is explicitly not permitted by the 1960 treaties when the current status of bases was set up. Another quirk of their situation is that unlike other entities in the table their borders have always been free of frontier controls, and Cypriot nationals can cross into them any time they like without hinderance. To make things more complicated their are enclaves within the bases completely under the control of the Republic of Cyprus government.

I suggest that someone might want to amend the table to reflect that, though in view of the contentious nature of the bases in Cyprus, I would expect a little debate on this issue. Freedom1968 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect regarding the status of the Sovereign Base Areas, which are legally indistinguishable from the other colonies, dependent territories, and British Overseas Territories. For example, the Interpretation Act 1978 defines a colony as "any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the British Islands [i.e. "the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man"] except— (a) countries having fully responsible status within the Commonwealth; (b) territories for whose external relations a country other than the United Kingdom is responsible; [and] (c) associated states". Similarly, the British Nationality Act 1981 (as originally enacted) explicitly listed the Sovereign Base Areas as one of the "British Dependent Territories"; the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 simply renamed those territories as "British Overseas Territories".

Regarding the 1960 Treaty, I don't think you're quite right here, either. So far as I can see there is nothing in the Treaty proper restricting the United Kingdom's rights; the restriction appears to rest entirely on a declaration by the British government contained in an Exchange of Notes made at the time with the Cypriot authorities ["Appendix O"]. As such, the restriction on use is simply a self-denying ordinance. But regardless of the precise basis, such matters seem best left for the article on the Sovereign Base Areas, which is after all linked to from the article here. A number of territories under past or present British control have had treaty, etc. limitations imposed upon them of some sort or other, and I think this listing will get needlessly bogged down with technicalities if we try and set them all out here. (It's bad enough as it is!)

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I'll get back to you on this one because I Still think there is a clear case to be made for a change, based on contemporary and historical sources and analogies. Freedom1968 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Too much information!

At present the listing has a Legend which suggests that the following have been identified:

!±!	Crown dependency		Part of United Kingdom
:±:	Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, and Commonwealth realm		Overseas territories
£IMP	Currency pegged to the GBP	CYP	Pound sterling derived currency
!T!	Common law legal system to various extent	[X]	Westminster style parliamentary system
abc	English as a dominant or an official language	/\\/	Rule of road drive on the left

I have a couple of problems with this:

1. The listing is (unavoidably) lengthy as it is, and should be kept to a minimum of information for each entry to reduce the amount of work needed to (a) verify that what's there already is correct, and (b) research what's been omitted. The latter point is not trivial, as the information for which symbols exist in the Legend is missing for the vast majority of territories currently included in the listing.
2. Most of these symbols identify matters which can vary (and have done so) with time. For example, a number of Caribbean territories switched over to the pound sterling in the nineteenth century; conversely, a number of Caribbean territories switched over in the twentieth century to a local or regional currency pegged to the US dollar. Thus, a symbol is inadequate to convey the information required of it; this is a listing encompassing 400 years of history, after all.

Surely much of this detail is best left to other Wikipedia listings, with this particular listing confining itself to a "See also" section with relevant links?

Also, the Legend has both a symbol and a colour-coding for identifying the Crown dependencies. Clearly this is silly. My preference would be to have just the colour-coding; the explanatory material for the listing already identifies the individual Crown dependencies by name, so that should hopefully get round any usability issues. (Using made-up ASCII symbols seems rather unprofessional, too!)

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I agree, I favour getting rid of them from the lists and as you suggest putting such info in a separate section. I do however favour keeping the colonial flags. Freedom1968 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Treaties and Acts of Parliament, etc.

Two issues with this section:

• it claims to be a listing of documents, but a number of entries are of a different sort, belonging instead to a timeline of events; and
• whether it should be just a list of documents, or should be split into separate lists of documents and of events, or whatever, it should be moved to its own page.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Again I agree this section should more clearly defined/improved or removed. Freedom1968 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why so many separate entries for Hong Kong?

Why is it necessary to have more than one entry for Hong Kong? Could this not be amalgamated into one with notes in the notes column signifying the changes in territorial extent? Also isn't it more appropriate to mention Japanese occupation there too? Freedom1968 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you should pick up on this while I was in the middle of an edit to change it! In principle there doesn't seem any need to have separate entries, whether "indented" or otherwise, relating to the various "bits" of Hong Kong, since they were never anything other territorial extensions to the core colony. That said, it seems from my notes that there was a gap of a few months between acquisition by the British and incorporation into the colony in the case of both Kowloon and the New Territories. If so, they would indeed merit their own entries, albeit for that period only. I'm tempted to "be bold" and edit them accordingly!

I'm also experimenting with italicising "events" to distinguish them from "status" changes. This might help with it not seeming so odd when we end up with overlapping date ranges.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Iceland part of British Empire, 1940-1944?

By any reputable account Iceland was never part of the British Empire from 1940-1944. Yes British forces came to help defend it in 1940 and then left in 1941 when US forces arrived to take over defence duties. The Icelandic people had ruled themselves since 1918 and the remaining link with Denmark was the Monarchy, which disappeared in 1944 when the people voted on a republic. During the period 1940-1944 Iceland retained full responsibility for its own governance. This entry should therefore be deleted. Freedom1968 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed the Iceland entry. See new section for suggestions as to a new article Freedom1968 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

South Vietnam part of the British Empire 1945-1946?

Again this is a misinterpretation of historical events. What happened in 1945-1946 in Vietnam was military intervention in a French Colony on behalf of France. As the British had available forces in the area and the French as yet did not, they were able to intervene and restore order after the Vietnamese nationalists declared their indpendence. The area remained a French Colony, so it is I think wrong to include it in this table. Freedom1968 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Entry now deleted from the table. Suggest this is included in a new article on British occupied territories Freedom1968 (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Princely States of the Indian Empire?

I think there is a strong case for including in the table the Princely States of the Indian Empire because a) They were not independent b)They owed alleigence the King-Emperor (ie the Kings oF the UK} C)Their unique status: they were not indpendent, they were not colonies or protected states nor even protectorates. They were regarded as "vassal" states which was an older more nebulous type of relationship.

The most interesting example of what this meant was Hyderabad State which in 1947 asserted, for a short time, its independence until 1948 when India invaded it and annexed it Freedom1968 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the princely states belong here "as of right". Unfortunately, including them presents two problems:

1. There's no definitive listing of them that I'm aware of. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, of course.
2. We're talking maybe 500 or more additional entries to be included!

562 actually according to most reference books! so it wouldn't be too difficult Freedom1968 (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But perhaps we could at least include the major states, such as those referred to in the text of the Government of India Act 1935, and add an explanatory note before the listings proper, and perhaps also add a link to List of Indian princely states (which is in a mess, but still) in the "See also" section at the bottom.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

This is a very difficult question, chiefly because of the long obfuscation of the British over the matter. While the princely states were widely considered as part of the Empire and were usually (but not always) coloured pink or red on world maps, they were also "foreign": their inhabitants were not British subjects unless they had gone out of their way to acquire that status, and while the British crown had "suzerainty" and by subsidiary alliances controlled the states' external affairs, sovereignty remained with the states' rulers. As a matter of law, they were independent: they made their own laws and their courts existed under the authority of their rulers, not of the British. It is telling that when the British withdrew from India shortly after enacting the Indian Independence Act 1947, they had no power to grant independence to the states (which as a matter of law already had it), nor of course to include any of them in newly-independent India or Pakistan: to begin with the new dominions consisted only of the provinces of British India. It was left to the states to decide whether to accede to one of the new dominions, and astonishingly few people in the subcontinent understand that, or that it was at the root of the Jammu and Kashmir saga. After 15 August 1947, what was the status of Hyderabad and the other princely states which chose not to accede to India or Pakistan? I do not think they were in any way part of the Empire, nor of the British Commonwealth. The British do not appear to have planned for their survival at all and certainly did not accept any responsibility for their defence (see Operation Polo). Moonraker (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your assertion that the Indian states were not part of the British Empire. The British Empire is defined not as being those territories under the sovereignty of the British Crown, but rather as those territories for whose external relations the British Government was responsible. After all, that's why we have been having a discussion about the terms "protectorate" and "protected state" above! Zanzibar made its own laws, for example, and was unquestionably "foreign". Sufficient lip-service was paid to the existence of Zanzibari sovereignty over the Kenya Protectorate to require Zanzibar's formal cession of the territory to Kenya on the latter's independence. The British theoretically paid tribute for Cyprus until some time before its annexation in 1914. And Gambia's independence constitution defined its new citizenship in terms both of persons who were a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in respect of the colony, and those who were a British protected person in respect of the protectorate. I really don't see that the international or de facto status of these territories differs in any way from that of the Indian states; so far as the outside world was concerned, they were all enveloped by a British wall, and so far as the local populace were concerned, it was the British who ultimately called the shots.

And surely in "cultural" terms the Indian states considered themselves to be a part of the British Empire, at least by the late nineteenth century. But even restricting ourselves to the political sphere, it's surely enough to point out that the states were represented at imperial conferences.

I don't think what happened in (or after) 1947 is particularly relevant, but would point out that the Indian Independence Act expressly asserts (in a section with a marginal note of "Consequences of the setting up of the new Dominions") that "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, [...]". [s. 7(1)(b)] In other words, the British unilaterally said goodbye to the Indian states, absolving themselves of all responsibility. I'm feeling too lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that in the parliamentary debates on the Independence Act the attitude of the British government is clearly expressed that the states were not, and would not be, sovereign states; they were expected to sign up to one or t'other of the new dominions. (I've heard it argued that this is the reason for the imperial title being retained until well into 1948, i.e. as a transitional sop, but have no hard evidence to support that contention.) But all this has a converse implication: that up until the fateful moment in August 1947, the British absolutely were responsible for the states, including their defence.

I agree that the states were never considered to be part of the Commonwealth.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

Yes, indeed, the states clearly were under British protection until 15 August 1947. What exactly the British had been responsible for before that date varied from state to state and depended on (1) the treaties which were abrogated then and (2) commercial and other arrangements which, in general, came to an end at the same time. When I said "I do not think they were in any way part of the Empire, nor of the British Commonwealth", that was in answer to "After 15 August 1947, what was the status of Hyderabad and the other princely states which chose not to accede to India or Pakistan?" Before the Indian Empire came to an end they were of course part of it, although to what extent they were also part of the British Empire is a more subtle question. It would be interesting to know more about how the passports issued by the Indian Empire varied between the provinces and the states. I am doubtful about the statement "I'm pretty sure that in the parliamentary debates on the Independence Act the attitude of the British government is clearly expressed that the states were not, and would not be, sovereign states; they were expected to sign up to one or t'other of the new dominions". If the British, having abandoned their relationship with the states, claimed to retain the power to limit their sovereignty, then they clearly did not suggest anything of the kind in what was enacted, and it is hard to see how that view could have been justified. So let's take a look at the debates on the Act to see what was said... as to what happened later, I believe I remember that the Nizam of Hyderabad appealed to King George VI to defend him against the threat of an Indian invasion and that while Attlee's government made no reply, Churchill spoke up for the Nizam. Moonraker (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do we include Calais in the table but not Normandy, Aquitaine or France?

If we include Calais in this table, why should we not then include The Duchy of Normandy and The Duchy of Aquitaine which were both Angevin possessions under Kings Henry II to John? Also at the death of Henry V his son Henry VI succeeded as King of France as well, because the peace treaty with France signed by Henry V stipulated that would happen. Freedom1968 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would argue in the opposite direction: we don't include Normandy, Aquitaine, etc. so it doesn't seem to make sense to include Calais; these territories aren't included within conventional definitions of "British Empire". It may be that someone felt that the sort-of incorporation of Calais within England during the (early) modern period merited its inclusion. But unless someone objects, I suggest it be removed. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

As Andrew Gwilliam says, none of the conventional definitions of the "British Empire" goes so far back. The possessions of the Crown in France had their origin in the Duchy of Normandy (which was never an English duchy) and in other personal claims of the English kings. In a similar way, Hanover shared our monarch from 1714 to 1837 without being considered part of the British Empire. In any event, all of these arguably English possessions in France had been lost long before the Union of the Crowns began to create a "British" identity in the modern sense. Moonraker (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Java need inclusion?

Java was captured from the Dutch in 1811 and was administered until 1816 before it was returned.I think it needs to be included in the table. Freedom1968 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. As you have no doubt realised, there's all sorts of blips, omissions, errors, and so forth in this listing!

I have now inserted an entry for Java. Apart from being a Lieutenant-Governorship, I'm not sure what the correct term for this possession would be, so have resorted to describing it as a "territory".

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

As you know, the title "Lieutenant-Governor" implies that Java was not considered as a presidency or colony in its own right. The early sources refer to Raffles as either "Lieutenant Governor of the Island of Java" or "Lieutenant Governor of Java and its Dependencies". Raffles was appointed by Minto, who was the East India Company's Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William. Java seems to have been effectively part of the Bengal Presidency of India. NB, I found this in The Coin Collector's Journal, vols. 1-3 (Scott and Co., 1875), at p. 68: "In 1811, Java was captured by the British, from which period down to 1816, when it was restored to the Dutch, its coins belong to the series of the British East India Company." Moonraker (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

International Settlement in Shanghai need inclusion?

The British concession in Shanghai was exterritoral, but still I think qualifies as British administered territory, even when it combined with the US concession. Freedom1968 (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a similar argument applies with respect to Tangiers? That said, the latter isn't even listed for when it was occupied by the English in the seventeenth century! I'll fix that, at least.

I'm not sure about whether the "international" settlements should be included. I think I lean towards them being linked to from the "See also" section and/or from an explanatory note before the listings proper. Moonraker?

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

We have the page English Tangier, and although it was called a "free city" for a time I see no doubt that it was an English possession. On the International Settlements, for me the "See also" section is a good place to link them. Being international, they surely were not specifically British? Moonraker (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Dunkirk 1658-1662 and Tournai 1513-1519 ?

Dunkirk was captured by a joint Cromwellian/French force in 1658 and sold back to France by Charles II in 1662. Tournai was conquered by Henry VIII in 1513 and like Calais represented briefly in Parliament. It was given up in 1519.

If you agree to the inclusion in the table of these two then I think my suggestion for including Normandy and Aquitaine will need to be reconsidered, particularly because Ireland was aquired at roughly the same time and it is in the table. On the other hand you may take a more doctrinaire approach and argue that this article is about the "British" not the "English" empire. Any views? Freedom1968 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I disapprove of describing English possessions before 1707 as "British", but I accept that this is an old-fashioned attitude and has little support from the latest reliable sources. Certainly, if Dunkirk was English and arguably British in the second half of the 17th century then the case for including it is similar to that of English Tangier and it should not be thrown in with the medieval possessions of the Crown in France. I have the opposite view of Tournai. Moonraker (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

British occupied territories administered by England/United Kingdom

In view of several entries on the table which did not seem appropriate to a table of British Empire, due to not actually being part of the British Empire, should we have an article listing those territories occupied at some stage? Freedom1968 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can give a general answer to that, Freedom1968. Do you have any other page titles in mind? Moonraker (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Kuwait 1899-1961 and Qatar 1916-1971 to be added?

Anyone want to add Kuwait 1899-1961, and Qatar 1916-1971? Freedom1968 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Dominions

The definition of dominions begins with: Dominions appeared in the early part of the twentieth century. Then Canada is shown as becoming a dominion in 1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.216.158 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes to late 19th century. Thanks. CMD (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should they be deleted?

Hello everybody, after a long gap due to a serious illness that almost killed me I have returned.

I would like to start a new discussion here on the subject of the entries under Europe. First of all you will see I have deleted several entries under that subsection as they really don't seem to qualify for inclusion as members of the British Empire. All were subject to occupation but were never regarded as part of the empire.

I doubt very much the Germans or Italians ever thought of themselves as members of the Empire, however grateful (or not) they were for their liberation. The occupation of those countries was not of course a solely British act, and Allied Control Commissions were set up for both countries. The Dodecanese formally remained under Italian sovreignty until the 1947 peace treaty, although it was clear that they would never be returned to their civilian control and that Greece was expected to gain control.

If you don't agree with these changes then by all means revert the changes, but I think they are fact based, not original research and help tidy up the entries.

Whilst doing those changes I was mystified why the UK in all its forms should be included. The home countries (and here I exclude for special reasons Ireland) of England, Wales and Scotland need to be treated not as colonies or subordinate territories but as a whole. The union of Scotland and England was a union of two sovereign states. Wales was a conquered territory but became an integral part of England. One definition of Empire is the subject to control of territories outside the metropolitan territory of the home country, which is also why I think why should not include the home countries.

That said I am sure my comments will provoke a few thoughts, but I felt it was better to raise them before attempting to delete these entries. If the consensus is that they should remain I will abide by that.

Freedom1968 (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Freedom1968, all of the home countries were part of the British Empire, just as much as Austria and Hungary were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The term "British Empire" never excluded the industrial and financial heart of the Empire and the seat of its "imperial parliament". Moonraker (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations on your recovery from this serious illness. Glad to have you back! Moonraker (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you you kind commments, it's only when you face death that you realise how valuable life is.

I see where you are coming from on the Austria-Hungary point, the "Mother Country" of course was always the starting point of any empire British or otherwise, though I would point out that Empires such Austria-Hungary, The Russian Empire or Chinese Empire were all contained within compact borders (or very largely so) and had few if any overseas territories. The French, German, Japanese and British Empires on the other all had extensive territories separated from the motherland/fatherland.

It is true that the Russian Empire had Port Arthur and the Khanates of Kiva and Bokhara (the later two being nominally protectorates) but largely the whole mass of territory was one block. Ditto for the Chinese Empire, unless you class Tibet as a protectorate rather than a province. Bosnia-Hercegovina, Austria-Hungary's old "colonial" territory was convieniently adjacent to the main empire so was basically part of the AH block.

The other point of note is that overwhelmingly those territories were subordinate to the home country. Scotland was part of the Greater British State after 1707, there was no (legally) suggestion the Scots were subordinate as a result of the union. Even the Welsh were not legally regarded by 1707 as legally subordinate as their indentity was merged effectively with that of England. Ireland does pose problems however, until 1801 of course Ireland was legally a separate realm and the union that took place in 1801 was not one of equals as with the Socts. Many Westminister polticians could not shake the feeling of superiority over the Irish, hence the feeling by Irishmen that they were still a colony in some respects, and some foreign observers seem to concur. In that respect maybe Ireland should be kept in.

However at the end of the day I guess it is debatable either way, but could we not simplify the separate entries covering the UK into one as follows:

43-410 Province of the Roman Empire 410-927 Period of political fragmentation between various Celtic and Germanic kingdoms 927 England united under one king for the first time 1171 Henry II of Kingdom of England conquers Ireland - creation of separate administration of Ireland (The "Lordship of Ireland") 1284 Annexation of last independent Welsh Princpality 1400-c1412 most of Wales briefly independent as the "Principality of Wales" under Owain Glyndwr 1535/1542 Administrative union of Welsh Marcher Lordships and Crown lands with Kingdom of England 1541 Lordship of Ireland raised to the status of a Kingdom as "Kingdom of Ireland" 1603 Personal Union of Kingdom of England with Kingdom of Scotland (both Kingdoms remain politicaly and administratively separate) 1653-1659 Temporary political union of England, Scotland and Ireland under Oliver Cromwell 1707 Political union of Kingdom of England with Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain 1801 Administrative union of Kingdom of Ireland with Kingdom of Great Britain 1922 Political separation of southern Ireland (as the Irish Free State) from Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1927 Title change to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This may not work I admit but it's just one suggestion. Apologies for any gramatical errors, I suffer from a mild form of dyslexia which I find very frustrating at times, however much I check things

Freedom1968 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My first comment is that no definition of the British Empire, however wide, would take in Roman Britain or the Heptarchy. If this list is suggesting the periods and events to be listed alongside "United Kingdom", Freedom1968, then most of these belong alongside "England", "Ireland", "Scotland", or "Great Britain", each of which is distinct from the United Kingdom, created in 1801. Conflating all of these countries might make the table look a little less complicated, but the world is complicated and there is no getting away from it. Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What was the status of Cyprus between 1914 and 1925?

I am a bit confused about what the actual status of Cyprus was between 1914 and 1925. Between 1878 and 1914 the territory was administered by the UK by agreement with the Ottoman Empire. It was still formally under the sovereignty of the Turkish Empire, so I guess this would make it a leased territory rather like that of the New Territories of Hong Kong beween 1898 and 1997?

However although annexed by the UK in 1914 on the outbreak of war by with the Ottoman Empire, it was not formally declared a Crown Colony like so many other territories following annexation until 1925. Did it have a separate Sui Generis status until 1925 or was it a Protectorate? To add to the confusion I note that according to UK nationality legislation at the time Cypriot inhabitants born on the Island were treated from 1914 as British Subjects as if they had been a British Crown Colony. The issue does not seem clear to me and I would welcome clarification if anyone can provide it. Freedom1968 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Calais should be deleted?

Notwithstanding previous discussions about Calais on these pages, should it be deleted?

If the lands, such as the Angevin lands in France, are not included because they do not constitute lands traditionally accepted by most sources as being part of the "British Empire" but feudal-Medieval domains, does this not then include Calais? Calais was acquired in 1347 and held until 1558. Apart from Ireland and the Isle of Man this was the only territory (other than the Channel Isles) then held outside of the British Isles by an English monarch. It was the sole remaining territory of the extensive English territories in France (except the Channels Islands). It was lost long before any of the later colonial territories were acquired.

The only other territory held outside of the British Isles and Channel Islands during this time was Tournai (1513-1519) captured by Henry VIII, and held only briefly. I previously suggested it too should be included if Calais was. I accepted the arguement that it should not, but I think for the sake of balance that Calais too should not be included because it was a feudal-Medieval remant of the previous era and it would also be an anachronism to include it. Contemporaries never saw it as a Colony, and indeed it was represented in the English Parliament, unlike later British Colonies.

On reflection if a date has to be assigned to the beginnings of Empire (English, British whatever), then it occurs during the reign of James I & VI (1603-1625). Although English trading activities with India started at very end of Elizabeth's reign (Foundation of the East India Company 1600) and there was Sir Walter Raleigh's abortive attempt at colonisation on Roanake Island (1587), it was only in James's reign that true colonisation really started. The terms "British" and even "Empire" are therefore appropriate from that time, even though politically there was no union between England and Scotland before 1707 (Cromwell's forced union excepted) and even if those living at the time did not use the terms in the way we do today.

Before anyone raises the dreaded OR stamp, let me just say that I have no intention of inserting the above in the article. All of what I write above is from sources already known and accepted, even within Wikipedia. I just think it is worth consideration in the context of the starting point for the article. Freedom1968 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot one country

Can someone add Sri Lanka because i didn't see it. Steve92341 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sport, Sri Lanka is already there under the Asia section as Ceylon, which was its official name until 1972. You will see that quite a few of the territories listed in the chart use their old colonial names. Where possible it would of course be a good idea to put in the comment column the modern name. Hope that helps. Freedom1968 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Lacking 13 colonies...

This map doesnt seem to have any of the thirteen colonies that later rebelled and formed the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.182.187 (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia are listed. The others remain to be done. Goustien (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed under the North American section that there are a bunch of colonies missing. For example: New York, New Jersy, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, etc, etc. At one point in time these and others were possessions of Great Briton. So why are they missing from the list? 74.79.34.29 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Be bold and add them. As far as I can tell, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia are listed as well as several predecessor colonies. Massachusetts Bay Colony is listed as a predecessor to New Hampshire but probably should be listed in its own right (as a predecessor to New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) That means that Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut Colony, Province of New Jersey, Province of New York, Province of Maryland, Province of Pennsylvania and Delaware Colony are missing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Any Scottish colonies in 1707?

This sentence in the lede is not clear

When the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707 by the union of the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England, the latter country's colonial possessions passed to the new state.

because it suggests that only England's colonies passed to the Kingdom of Great Britain. Didn't Scotland have settlers in Nova Scotia, and did those settlements (although disputed in an ongoing war with France and first nations) pass to the new kingdom? If so, should there be a passing mention? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have now read Scottish colonization of the Americas, Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1632) and Treaty of Suza, and though I don't have access to the sources, it is clear to me that Charles I relinquished Scotland's claims in Canada over 70 years before the Act of Union. There is no need to change the lede (unless there is value to readers in a footnote to say that Scotland didn't have colonies at the time. Is there?) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

England in the main list, but not Scotland or Wales

Unlike England and Ireland, Scotland doesn't get a mention before the accession of James VI to the English throne in 1603. Wasn't it from time to time a feudal vassal state of England in the late medieval, Tudor and Elizabethan times, and if so, doesn't that deserve a brief mention in the list? In any case, should Scotland and Wales get brief mentions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing Territories

The following territories aren't in the list but were territories of the British Empire -- shouldn't they be included? Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Arctic Territories, New Albion, Red River Colony, New Caledonia DanTrent (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Isle of Man in 1827

The article says it went from being a "possession" to a "crown dependency" in 1827. Is there a source with detail for this? I've found several things online saying that exact same thing, but with no further detail as to the law or method, or even date. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)