British subject has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Is there a NPOV (or accuracy) issue with 'there is no problem with the word "subject" per se'? The term 'British subject' is often used in a semi-derogatory manner, to make a political distinction between 'subjects' and 'citizens' that's been moot for a long time. Perhaps it's worth amending to 'Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition (and "British citizen" should be the preferred form when referring to British nationals)...'? -- Holgate 20:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I understand what you're saying, but I'm not entirely sure how accurate it is to describe all British nationals as British citizens, because 'British citizen' also has a precise statutory definition nowadays. A British Overseas Territories Citizen (citizen of one of the Colonies, if I'm permitted to cut through the jargon) is also a subject of the Queen. The law is well-known for terms which are still correct in a legal context, although often pejorative in common usage (e.g. the status of 'bastard', or 'illegitimate child'). Isn't this just another example -- and one which isn't quite as hard-and-fast as 'bastard'?
I think it's fair to say that 'subject' describes the relationship of an individual to their monarch generally (whether we like being subjects or not, those who owe allegiance to the Crown are subjects), whereas 'citizen', in a British context, is a construct of nationality law which only arose for the first time in 1948. Hence it'd be inaccurate for me to describe myself as a British subject in the context of nationality law, but perfectly (legally) valid in terms of the relationship between me and the Crown, e.g. for the purposes of the Treason Acts; on the other hand, I am a British citizen only for the purposes of nationality law -- Killiedaft
I removed this:
Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition, British citizens and others continue to be "subjects" of the Crown at common law. Accordingly, nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still be referred to as "Her Majesty's subjects".
It was uncited, and a Google search for "Her Majesty's subjects" reveals basically nothing post-1981 British Nationality Act. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not really original research, you cite Calvin's case, which says that subjection is to the natural body of the Sovereign, and allegiance is due to the natural body. Subjection and allegiance are due from the subject to the monarch, and protection is due from the monarch to the subject. Much of this article is nationalist socialist twaddle as though statutory citizenship were the only game in town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:21BD:203D:5F13:29F1 ( talk) 07:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
We now have an article with nothing prior to 1915. The first paragraph of the previous text was reasonable and not every single sentence in an article need a citation. If that was the case nearly every article would disappear. Red Hat, would you think about some modification here? One route might be to summarise History of British nationality law which seems the right balance of citation and text?-- Snowded TALK 09:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) you come across from time to time like you would like every sentence cited! :-) I will have a go later in the week at a pre 1915 passage and see if it works. -- Snowded TALK 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
From WP:V -
Whatever your area of expertise, you are not immune from having to provide references demonstrating that reliable third party sources reach the same conclusions that you do in your contributions. I have to say, this article reads like your own personal paper. Let us take this sentence as an example - "Although the term British subject now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it would therefore be incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject, the concept of a subject is still recognised by the law, and nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still accurately be described as the Queen's subjects, Her Majesty's subjects". You have now provided a source, for this, but as far as I can tell, that source does not reach the same conclusions that you do. You are taking mention of "subjects" in a court ruling and, and in an Act of Parliament, and then telling the reader what is or is not accurate. That is synthesis I am afraid. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Re recent edits by an anonymous IP address, now apparently by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, really take the cake. The reference to the relevant Australian statute is in the body of the article! Andrew Yong ( talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The date on which Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects differs under the laws of different countries. Andrew Yong has just quoted a part (partII) of the 1948 Australian act which was repealed by the 1984 Australian act. It does indeed mean that while Australian citizens had ceased being British subjects under UK law since 1st January 1983, they nevertheless continued to be British subjects under Australian law for a while after that. To the best of my knowledge, Australian citizens are still British subjects under New Zealand law, unless the New Zealand Citizenship act of 1977 has been amended. These details do not have much practical significance because the legal status of being a British subject does not have any administrative significance nowadays. The practical significance of being a British subject declined after the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants act. By 1983, it meant virtually nothing in real terms. Rights of abode in the UK are nowadays based on whether or not you are a British citizen, and not on whether or not you are a British subject. I think that Andrew Yong perhaps failed to emphasize that his quote is part II of the 1948 act, but that part II of the 1948 act was repealed by the 1984 act. Rather than considering all these many dates regarding the fizzling out of an archaic terminology, it is better to look at the overall picture. Prior to 1948, there was one nationality for all the British Empire. A Canadian losing his passport in Sydney would have obtained a new passport there, and that new passport would have been an Australian passport describing him as a British subject, born in Toronto, or wherever. After 1948 each unit within the empire got its own citizenship. But all these units mutually legislated that the status of 'British subject (or commonwealth citizen)' would remain an umbrella term. The significance of this umbrella term had pretty well fizzled out by the 1970's. David Tombe ( talk) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
When did white British subjects born in Great Britain lose the right to settle automatically in Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartcottis ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Those citation tags can be removed because the facts are fully sourced in the relevant citizenship laws. David Tombe ( talk) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This might serve as an independent (non-government) source:
More material is available here: John Tulloch (lecturer)#Possible deportation -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't there a description of what a British Subject is currently in the lead? Regards, Rob ( talk) 15:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British subject. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Missing info section added a couple of days ago, if anyone wants a redacted pic of such an Irish British national's "British Subject, with abode status" passport type (perhaps for upload by someone knowledgeable to do so to wiki commons), see here: https://i.imgur.com/UlnJwdA.jpg
Also, see details pertaining to the rights for such "Subject, with abode" passport holders to obtain full Citizen passport under the recent " Windrush Scheme" -- Jimthing ( talk) 00:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cavie78 ( talk · contribs) 17:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this one (and sorry it's taken so long for the article to be reviewed!) I notice that you put this article up for FA, so I'm going to be particularly picky with this review, to hopefully help you later if/when you decide to give FA another go
Cavie78 (
talk)
18:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Lead
Development from feudal allegiance
Transition to Commonwealth citizenship
Redefinition as residual nationality class
Acquisition and loss
Rights and privileges
Restrictions
Images
Sources
General
British subject has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Is there a NPOV (or accuracy) issue with 'there is no problem with the word "subject" per se'? The term 'British subject' is often used in a semi-derogatory manner, to make a political distinction between 'subjects' and 'citizens' that's been moot for a long time. Perhaps it's worth amending to 'Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition (and "British citizen" should be the preferred form when referring to British nationals)...'? -- Holgate 20:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I understand what you're saying, but I'm not entirely sure how accurate it is to describe all British nationals as British citizens, because 'British citizen' also has a precise statutory definition nowadays. A British Overseas Territories Citizen (citizen of one of the Colonies, if I'm permitted to cut through the jargon) is also a subject of the Queen. The law is well-known for terms which are still correct in a legal context, although often pejorative in common usage (e.g. the status of 'bastard', or 'illegitimate child'). Isn't this just another example -- and one which isn't quite as hard-and-fast as 'bastard'?
I think it's fair to say that 'subject' describes the relationship of an individual to their monarch generally (whether we like being subjects or not, those who owe allegiance to the Crown are subjects), whereas 'citizen', in a British context, is a construct of nationality law which only arose for the first time in 1948. Hence it'd be inaccurate for me to describe myself as a British subject in the context of nationality law, but perfectly (legally) valid in terms of the relationship between me and the Crown, e.g. for the purposes of the Treason Acts; on the other hand, I am a British citizen only for the purposes of nationality law -- Killiedaft
I removed this:
Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition, British citizens and others continue to be "subjects" of the Crown at common law. Accordingly, nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still be referred to as "Her Majesty's subjects".
It was uncited, and a Google search for "Her Majesty's subjects" reveals basically nothing post-1981 British Nationality Act. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not really original research, you cite Calvin's case, which says that subjection is to the natural body of the Sovereign, and allegiance is due to the natural body. Subjection and allegiance are due from the subject to the monarch, and protection is due from the monarch to the subject. Much of this article is nationalist socialist twaddle as though statutory citizenship were the only game in town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:21BD:203D:5F13:29F1 ( talk) 07:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
We now have an article with nothing prior to 1915. The first paragraph of the previous text was reasonable and not every single sentence in an article need a citation. If that was the case nearly every article would disappear. Red Hat, would you think about some modification here? One route might be to summarise History of British nationality law which seems the right balance of citation and text?-- Snowded TALK 09:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) you come across from time to time like you would like every sentence cited! :-) I will have a go later in the week at a pre 1915 passage and see if it works. -- Snowded TALK 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
From WP:V -
Whatever your area of expertise, you are not immune from having to provide references demonstrating that reliable third party sources reach the same conclusions that you do in your contributions. I have to say, this article reads like your own personal paper. Let us take this sentence as an example - "Although the term British subject now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it would therefore be incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject, the concept of a subject is still recognised by the law, and nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still accurately be described as the Queen's subjects, Her Majesty's subjects". You have now provided a source, for this, but as far as I can tell, that source does not reach the same conclusions that you do. You are taking mention of "subjects" in a court ruling and, and in an Act of Parliament, and then telling the reader what is or is not accurate. That is synthesis I am afraid. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Re recent edits by an anonymous IP address, now apparently by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, really take the cake. The reference to the relevant Australian statute is in the body of the article! Andrew Yong ( talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The date on which Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects differs under the laws of different countries. Andrew Yong has just quoted a part (partII) of the 1948 Australian act which was repealed by the 1984 Australian act. It does indeed mean that while Australian citizens had ceased being British subjects under UK law since 1st January 1983, they nevertheless continued to be British subjects under Australian law for a while after that. To the best of my knowledge, Australian citizens are still British subjects under New Zealand law, unless the New Zealand Citizenship act of 1977 has been amended. These details do not have much practical significance because the legal status of being a British subject does not have any administrative significance nowadays. The practical significance of being a British subject declined after the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants act. By 1983, it meant virtually nothing in real terms. Rights of abode in the UK are nowadays based on whether or not you are a British citizen, and not on whether or not you are a British subject. I think that Andrew Yong perhaps failed to emphasize that his quote is part II of the 1948 act, but that part II of the 1948 act was repealed by the 1984 act. Rather than considering all these many dates regarding the fizzling out of an archaic terminology, it is better to look at the overall picture. Prior to 1948, there was one nationality for all the British Empire. A Canadian losing his passport in Sydney would have obtained a new passport there, and that new passport would have been an Australian passport describing him as a British subject, born in Toronto, or wherever. After 1948 each unit within the empire got its own citizenship. But all these units mutually legislated that the status of 'British subject (or commonwealth citizen)' would remain an umbrella term. The significance of this umbrella term had pretty well fizzled out by the 1970's. David Tombe ( talk) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
When did white British subjects born in Great Britain lose the right to settle automatically in Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartcottis ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Those citation tags can be removed because the facts are fully sourced in the relevant citizenship laws. David Tombe ( talk) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This might serve as an independent (non-government) source:
More material is available here: John Tulloch (lecturer)#Possible deportation -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't there a description of what a British Subject is currently in the lead? Regards, Rob ( talk) 15:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British subject. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Missing info section added a couple of days ago, if anyone wants a redacted pic of such an Irish British national's "British Subject, with abode status" passport type (perhaps for upload by someone knowledgeable to do so to wiki commons), see here: https://i.imgur.com/UlnJwdA.jpg
Also, see details pertaining to the rights for such "Subject, with abode" passport holders to obtain full Citizen passport under the recent " Windrush Scheme" -- Jimthing ( talk) 00:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cavie78 ( talk · contribs) 17:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this one (and sorry it's taken so long for the article to be reviewed!) I notice that you put this article up for FA, so I'm going to be particularly picky with this review, to hopefully help you later if/when you decide to give FA another go
Cavie78 (
talk)
18:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Lead
Development from feudal allegiance
Transition to Commonwealth citizenship
Redefinition as residual nationality class
Acquisition and loss
Rights and privileges
Restrictions
Images
Sources
General